>FAITH VS ATHEISM
I am trying to find some food debates for religion/faith vs atheism
HOWEVER
The debates I want to see are those that focus more on the idea of creation or there being a creator and NOT get stuck in what it says in the bible etc
I am more interested in debates where it's stheism vs the idea of the world being created by a creator regardless of religion
m.youtube.com
Here
It's not a debate because I hardly see anyone debate divine conservation. Absolutely no mainstream atheist takes it on despite it being the most prevalent argument for theism in the west
>the idea of the world being created by a creator regardless of religion
If there is only one way creation actually happened, why are there 10,000 different creations stories and gods and religions.
The only way that would make sense is if the humans manufactured all their stories and they're all equally right (i.e. equally wrong).
I fucking hate Casey Neistat
>craig
>Absolutely no mainstream atheist takes it on despite it being the most prevalent argument for theism in the west
>mfw
Faith: It's ok to rape children because my imaginary friend not only says it's fine but often commands it
Atheism: Raping children is wrong because it is both physically and mentally extremly traumatic and studies have shown that people subjected to abuse are more likely to go on to commit abuse
Okay so this is my take
>thousand of religions on Earth
>almost all of them follow the same themes
>my guess is that primitive man was heading nowhere quickly
>sentient intelligent species from outta space notices this and through their warm heart gift us the gift of religion
>inb4 aluims ayy lmao
>they know our simple minds only understand punishment/reward, so they cleverly write a book of ideals that will control us for the greater good
>humankind is then able to progress forward on these new values
> still think there is a motive for them giving us these ideals
>still to figure out what that motive is.
Oh and not sure if our creation was only random or if the ayy lmaos had a hand in that too.
youtube.com
This one is better maybe
Here's the problem in the atheistic worldview.
Why is it inherently wrong that a lump of insentient matter (that has by chance arranged itself into a machine that has the illusion of emotions and freewill) has a certain interaction with another lump of matter that causes "trauma" to that lump?
(Before some autist tries to divert attention from the main issue, I was not ridiculing evolution)
>that has by chance arranged itself into a machine that has the illusion of emotions and freewill
Said no scientist, ever
You're right, there isn't any deep reason why it's wrong. We consider it wrong because as living beings, it's probably a good idea to continue living. Existence with pain often doesn't benefit the continuation of life, or severely degrades the quality of a life that could create and nurture more life.
>science can explain human consciousness
>it's probably a good idea to continue living.
>probably
Do you have a mathematical formula showing this?
It depends on what theory of ethics the atheist has. An atheist can say it is wrong because suffering is wrong, and so is decreased health.
no, you hate succesful people
No. However, gravity keeps pulling, water keep flowing, and all life that exists also only moves in one direction; the creation of more life.
Not true. Homosexuals, and asexuals don't (usually) reproduce.
yeah, that's why they should not be tolerated. some life is defective.
>and all life that exists also only moves in one direction; the creation of more life.
That is not a purpose it is just a consequence
If religion makes people weak and dumb and atheism strengthens people because they don't have to worry about an entity judging their actions, then why is an atheistic Europe being conquered by Islam?
Some heterosexuals have never reproduced, either.
There isn't any 'purpose'.
Gravity doesn't have an endgame, it just keeps going forever.
And someone else can just create an theory of ethics that says its good
The largest problem with atheists is they think it's for everyone. Religion fills a lot of emotional gaps atheism doesn't.
Most of Europe isn't actually atheist. Most people there actually believe in a higher power, it's just that many aren't as religious as a typical American.
Exactly
In an atheist world nothing is either good or bad
So? Christianity has a similar problems. The logical reason why some some things are good, and while some are not, is a meta-ethical problem that is not exclusive to an atheist moral systems of ethical truths.
I've never seen an atheist that wasn't a limp wristed, liberal faggot.
Chance plays a huge role in evolutionary processes. I know there's more to evolution than that, but I am not going to give the full description of all the processes since I am not writing a thesis.
Most of the outspoken atheists reject the concept of freewill because they claim either everything in the universe is deterministic, or that the quantum nature of everything means everything is random and we have no control over that. Same sort of reasoning can be used to show that emotions are illusory.
Not necessarily true. Most atheists are not moral nihilists.
There is an interesting debate out there between William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens about whether or not belief in a diety was reasonable. Hitchens starts going off topic about midway through though. I also enjoy any talks or debates from John Lennox.
Would link, but on my phone.
here, OP, you might be interested in this
atlanteanconspiracy.com
How can that reasoning show that emotions are illusory?
You've also probably never been out of your cult town either
>So? Christianity has a similar problems.
I never said it was a problem its a reality
In an atheist world there is no need for morality
There are more so more similarities than differences. In fact that the Bible is the only one that starts with there being nothing (just like modern science)
>Hume
I raise you Anscombe.
>Most of Europe isn't actually atheist
HahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaHahahahahahaha
>I am trying to find some food debates for religion/faith vs atheism
stopped here. anything worth debating has been settled in the 1970s/1980s. Any remaining "debate" is religionfags ignorant of and/or incapable of understanding counterarguments and scientific theory.
ah i have to give you poland
If by "morality," you mean a system of moral truths, then yes, an atheist doesn't need it to survive. But an atheist will probably need some code of conduct to survive.
Why does the atheist need to survive?
I fucking hate Casey Neistat. Fuck that putrid jew.
It depends on the atheist. People have different goals.
Europe isn't the Netherlands.
You have little to no emotional intelligence.
what are you even saying, jesus fucking christ you read like a pedantic high school fedora tipper and i'm actually serious this time
This.
Not because he's a Jew, he just isn't genuine enough.
>I am more interested in debates where it's stheism vs the idea of the world being created by a creator regardless of religion
here are a ton of william lane craig debates:
commonsenseatheism.com
they're categorized by how shitty the atheist did in refuting his arguments
>it's [current year], the debate is settled
nah
It depends on the atheist. Not everyone have the same goals.
Chickens and eggs.
Double digit iq redditor detected
>no, you hate people that win the memelottery
anyway, all religions are man made bullshit, there is no debate.
Excellent argument.
It's Christopher. It'll basically be nothing but "God is a doodoo head, m'kay" OP is asking for specifically NOT that.
And I raise you this on human thinking in general
The only true path to follow is agnostic deism.
Organized religion is silly, atheism is silly.
...
Autistic Hungarian robot.
Atheist live in a society built by christians.
Atheist,muslims and jews cant buold a society that has justice on their own.
The strongest argument for religion is that it provides social cohesiveness, a shared creed, a vision for the future, and safeguards against degeneracy.
The moment you get bogged down in rational arguments about 'proofs of God existing' or whatnot you've already lost.
I'm saying this as an atheist btw
Survival is (empirically) the basic instinct of any living being, with reproduction being the most important after that.
Yes, that could happen (and it does, in fact, that's what sociopaths are), but so what? If that person wants to belong to a social group, he has to abide by the rules of such society, which are dictated by the moral truths of the majority.
Atheists do have a need for morality, it regulates society.
I would also find it hard to believe that a small fraction of the human population collectively decided to make a new society.
>misrepresenting the argument this much
Of course rape is wrong but sex with a little girl is not necessarily rape or abusive. A gentle loving sexual relationship between a man and a little girl is good.
I meant that emotions are illusory in the sense that the value we give them is illusory.
For example, we humans have been conditioned (whether due to natural selection or whatever) into thinking being happy is good and we think we want to be happy more often than in pain, however emotions are nothing more than our perception of neurochemical reactions which are triggered by certain stimuli and in the atheistic worldview we have no control over the stimuli or our reactions, since everything is either deterministic or random in nature. We are just along for a meaningless ride.
fucking shit threads of pol:
-is x degenerate?
-why are millenials ...?
-god/religion vs atheism
-left vs right
-political spectrums
i dream with a pol where 90% of threads are about who controls the world, who are the founders of world domination, owners of centrals banks, who were their antecesors, who gonna be their descendants, how they manipulate populations of whole countries with media, tv and movies.
its sickening to see how nobody seems to care, nobody seems to notice
rant off/
keep talking about your dull empty meaningless threads that only promote division while a few smart group gets to conquer not only your lands but your brain.
fuck every single one of you
and btw, everytime i try to make threads about it, they get archived really fast, ha!
>i dream with a pol where 90% of threads are about who controls the world, who are the founders of world domination, owners of centrals banks, who were their antecesors, who gonna be their descendants, how they manipulate populations of whole countries with media, tv and movies.
We already have that figured out.
Emotions could still have value while the world being completely deterministic, or completely random.
they say god is like a father, not a male cosmic parent
they say the tao is like a mother that loves and nourishes all things
god is like a father that sired the universe, the tao is like a loving mother that nourishes and sustains it
our brains and thoughts aren't in our control. i don't control how i think of things, what i choose to think about, any less than i control what the weather does.
Go to stormfront, whiteboi.
Like seriously, you weak-minded autist.
Most of the time philosophical discussions don't pop up Sup Forums. Most of the time everyone is talking about immigration, blacks, Donald Trump, and Jews.
everytime is see this fucker i kek over how ugly he is and dont care that he is. He is so fucking ugly. But high energy i have to admit.
t. ad hominem
So we're just going to ignore our societies boundaries that the world was built upon. In the universe, you could make this argument, but on earth it's out of the question, it's wrong.
He's the epitome of a poser and delayed adolescence.
tbqh I am jelly as a mother fucker whenever I see his videos.
Hes living the fucking dream man
Its as if he doesn't have to worry about anything at all monetarily
>Goes all over the world because fuck it
>Ugly as fuck but girls are all over him
>Lives in fucking Manhattan (Most central place in all of NYC)
>No cares in the world
>Runs a little known social media app
>Has Candaice
>Gets all these little gadgets and gizmos for free because they know hes going to promote it
Fucker has such a carefree life. Luckiest motherfucker on youtube
I am a gnostic. AMA.
What objective metric can you use to assign value to emotions? Neurochemical reactions aren't inherently good or bad.
Beauty.
>objective metric can you use etc.
Beauty is objective. You'll never understand that until you understand that, because beauty comes in one value.
only children get involved in arguments about faith.
Only children would turn down arguments about faith, under principle.
deism vs athiesm debates are stupid
there's no way to show that a supernatural power doesn't exist
all that can be said is that it isn't required
craig is an asshat
go to cripplechan then faggot
there you find tons of threads that start with those topics, and then get immediately derailed because everyone thinks you're a Jewish shill one way or another.
And what exactly does that prove? That a specific creation myth states there was only the creator in the beginning who then decided to create it all, somehow makes it more true than other creation myths?
The Norse creation myth states that there was only Ymir and a giant cow in the beginning, and from there the world came into being...
What if are an atheist who lives in Japan or Thailand?
>In the universe, you could make this argument, but on earth it's out of the question, it's wrong.
It is possible that a powerful alien civilization could discover earth, observe our socially acceptable customs and not like it and then wipe out humanity and impose their own rules on Earth. In the end, there is no way you say our ways of life are better or worse than the aliens'. Our laws and rules are only in effect on Earth because the ruling powers enforce them with force by removing non-compliant citizens from society.
How do you use beauty to assign values to emotions?
>Beauty is objective
Demonstrably false. People have different tastes in art, other people etc.
>beauty comes in one value
What value is that?
wtf I'm a faitheist now
The value of all.
Why would one assume that in a ball-planet sitting on strings from the gravitational pull of a gigantic, floating, nuclear plasma ball that their isn't objectivity and that all life follows it?
But Japan has a religion?
See a cow and ymir not nothing
I am assuming you haven't been following the conversation I have been having in this thread.
Refer to this post:I then argued why there isn't any inherent right or wrongs in an atheistic worldview. Maybe there is a worldview which can rationally defend the notion of objective morality and measure of aesthetics (although I doubt it), but in my opinion, certainly not an naturalist, atheistic one.
I don't know what worldview you adhere to, but the things you have been saying to me don't make sense. Perhaps you can elaborate on what "the value of all" means and how this is quantified.
Faith is the belief all is okay even if reasoning dictates otherwise.
There are inherent right and wrongs in an atheistic worldview.
Harm can be seen as wrong if it has no cause or effect.
That can be seen as objectively wrong as it causes a negative impact to all living things (in a way), but causes no positive impact, except for those doing the harm, which is a drain.
Something being drained is harmful, just like cutting more trees then you plant is harmful to the environment and infrastructure.
On top of that, efficiency is something that can be observed and the most efficient good outcome is the aesthetics that most rational spirituality would use. (Essentially simplicity.)
>Harm can be seen as wrong if it has no cause or effect.
What you perceive as harm is just a bunch of particles interactions. No particle interaction is inherently good or bad. You try to avoid harm because you have been conditioned to do so in circumstances beyond your control.
>That can be seen as objectively wrong as it causes a negative impact to all living things (in a way), but causes no positive impact, except for those doing the harm, which is a drain.
You are presupposing that our existence has any inherent value. We are just a bunch of inanimate stuff arranged in such a way that works like a machine.
>Something being drained is harmful, just like cutting more trees then you plant is harmful to the environment and infrastructure.
Again, you are presupposing the "harm" done to those objects is inherently bad. Nature simply doesn't care whether they exist or not. If they exist, it is just coincidental.
>atheism vs the idea of the world being created by a creator
false dichotomy. even if the world was created, we don't know it was done by a being we would call a god.
Here's how it goes,
We don't know if there is such thing as creator, we don't know if universe was even created or was just there since forever. We think that everything comes from something and if we go all the way back and assume some divine entity was the cause of all that is, we still then continue to wonder from where did IT come from and so on.
Then we have the idea that it just came into existence from nothing, just blank nothingness. It does seem irrational and unlikely but i like this theory the most, as it really makes me think. And as i also think concepts like gods are for retarded people
Reality is as mysterious as ever.
Our brains seem to not be able to cope with the fact that we might never actually find out how universe is made, although it's interesting to think about. I find nothing more interesting tbqh