Atheists

>atheists
>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so I can't believe that any extraordinary claim in the Bible is true
>However, an atheist society, with atheist morals can total exist without genocide, even though atheism predates Christ, the reason a successful atheist society or empire has never thrived is because people didn't live in great conditions relative to how they do now, so they needed the comfort religion. Also, religion is an evolutionary trait that helped humans survive, but it's irrelevant now, because technology and comfort.
>Why, no, none of these unfalsifiable assertions require evidence, because they are self-evidentially true and not extraordinary claims at all.

Why do they pick on micro issues(Canon law, scripture) and never focus on the macro issues(religion was causal in formation and care of society), and breaking Chesterton's fence might have repercussions they aren't aware of?

Other urls found in this thread:

lyceumphilosophy.com/?q=node/117
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Mateen
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>anglo-saxon way of thinking/paradigm
>empiricism
Anglo-saxons can't into anything other than empiricism.

Should also add the nassim taleb made this similar point in anti-fragile(which is basically a burkean argument).

Here's a more concise question to ask; if atheists believe that religion is an evolutionary construct, that was important in forming societies, why do they believe its absence won't have a negative repercussions?

>You can be good without God

I'm not claiming that you can't, but if religion is an a priori creation to gov in society, then gov would base its moral code on that religion, and the laws would reflect that, yes?

Societies in their apex are usually monogamous, how would an atheist code or law try to keep it that way?

Burke and GK Chesterton were anglos and made similar points, albeit there's were more about institutions and policy.

Didn't read. Christianity is faith based which is by definition belief without evidence. You can't follow it without being bred into it, being desperate for direction, or being actually retarded.

>faith by definition is belief without evidence.
You believe that what you perceive in the world is true, without questioning if what you perceive in itself is as you perceive it. You inherently know the thing in itself and as such you have faith that what you perceive is true. Faith makes the world go round m8.

>inherently can't know

>Christianity is faith based which is by definition belief without evidence.

I never mentioned Christianity, but even so, my main point is that even if that's true, then isn't a society without religion faith based?

Also
>Implying all faith based ideas are bad

A lot of concepts underlying society are faith based, democracy is faith based, you can't objectively prove its better. Equality is also faith based. Investing in the stock market is faith based. Believing that solipsism isn't true is faith based

I love how atheists just hand-wave away thousands of years of religious development thinking that its all just useless mumbo jumbo

*A strong and lasting society without religion

>democracy is faith based

what

>stock market is faith based

Literally no one blindly buys stock on faith.

>Equality is also faith based

That makes no sense without context.

>solipsism
>philosophy

No thanks.

They where the original >muh current year people, believing that society was successful inspite of religion(despite a huge lack of atheist societies) and that we could now move past religion, because of current technology and comfort

By you believe truth exists without it having evidence…
Your assertion is the affirmation of that.
Faith is the basis of every single presupposition.

Democracy as a good thing is taken as truism, you can't test democracy vs anything else in a vacuum, so democracy as a good thing is based on faith.

>Literally no one blindly buys stock on faith.

They buy them on assumptions about what they thing the company is going to do.

>That makes no sense without context.

See; democracy, believing that equality is good for society has to be taken at face value.

>No thanks.

Believing that your reality isn't the only one in an unprovable assertion

The stock market requires one to appeal to a type of foreknowledge, a predictability.
Predictability is subject to the induction fallacy and must therefore be taken upon faith.
Equality, there is no empirical reason for having a doctrine of egalitarianism.
Name the context please.

By his response I have faith that he is not willing to be involved in the conversation seriously.

Equality meaning egalitarianism, the modern term of it, you had it right

Idk, could I have formatted the question better? Was I too inarticulate? I thought this was a decent topic and wouldn't gotten some solid conversation going, but it's pretty much dead.

I don't think you're at fault, its an interesting topic, but interesting topics on Sup Forums usually get neglected due to more important things like shilling and memes.

>They buy them on assumptions about what they thing the company is going to do.

Yes, which is not faith. They are calculated assumptions based on performance and history.

You and I are discussing two different things.

It's inadequate to just say "faith" at this point. A distinction is warranted. I am discussing Blind Faith, you are discussing Warrented Faith, which isn't applicable here either. To say you need to have faith to invest is banal; I don't have faith in who I'm investing in, I have evidence that they will do well, faith is not required for me to invest my trust in them.

>See; democracy, believing that equality is good for society has to be taken at face value.

So, what you meant was, Equality is believed to be a good thing on faith. Yes. I don't buy into that either.

To try and go back to your topic. I think that atheists (or modern atheists rather) pick on scripture because they are trying to attack the actual text by taking it at face value. As metaphysics is pretty much dead in this day and age it is easy for them to attack just the text and disregard anything abstract it may contain, as such things "cannot be proven" anyway in their mind. If you think modern atheists hate religion and have it as a mission to annihilate it you should see what happens when you mention metaphysics to them.

Occasionally decent convos will start, but it's always been rare.

Maybe
>Atheists believe things that don't aren't provable are incorrect
>Believe atheist societies will be better than religious societies because?

Keep in shorter, and then play out philosophy instead of trying to cram it into one post

I don't hate it. I'm the only non-believer in my family to the best of my knowledge. I studied the law and ethics of the bible for 4 years at christian private school. That was many years ago though.

This is a Sup Forums tier slide thread. Everyone needs to sage and move on.

>I'm discussing blind faith

Isn't it blind faith to say that atheism is better for a society than religion?

Yes. I never said it was better for society. I said it doesn't make much sense to be a christian. I won't speculate any further.

>Atheists believe things that don't aren't provable are incorrect
It would seem so, it seems to me they believe in what they can observe, and to physically interact with the object.

>Believe atheist societies will be better than religious societies because?
I don't quite get what you are asking - are we, the ones part of the convo believe that or do the atheists believe it?

I will assume the second - i would say that it is not impossible for atheists to form a good society, but then this is also true for a religious society.

Again, where itt did I specifically mention Christianity? Where did I make a hat joke either?

If we know what religious societies are and what they create, shouldn't it follow that maintaining that is important?

Yeah, it's still difficult to talk about metaphysics without getting dragged down into micro arguments

Mentioned it first post.

No one thinks that things that aren't provable aren't correct dummy. It doesn't make since in believing such things if they aren't though. You certainly don't think the fact that we can't disprove the existence of unicorns means it's rational to believe in them do you?

>separation of church and state
You live in an atheist society and an all loving god is falsifiable.

>I don't quite get what you are asking - are we, the ones part of the convo believe that or do the atheists believe it?

Atheists frequently make the case that society would be better off without religion, despite lack of evidence with this assertion, so it's aimed at atheists

>I will assume the second - i would say that it is not impossible for atheists to form a good society, but then this is also true for a religious society.

I don't know if it's impossible for them to form one, but since atheism predates Christ, they should've formed one by now. It's also an unprovable assertion on their part, because we know what religious societies look like, and we know what societies that are atheist in law look like(USSR, Mao's China, pot's Cambodia), while I'm not saying that's what all atheist societies will look like, it's the only current basis of comparison we have

>Mentioned in first post

It was a hitchens quote, but my entire point was a lot more broad.

>separation of church and state

Doesn't mean what you think it means

>You live in an atheist society and an all loving god is falsifiable.

No I don't, most western values are explicitly values derived from religion. Most of our laws were based on that same moral code.

>It was a hitchens quote, but my entire point was a lot more broad.

That shouldn't change the flavor of my reply either.

Again, my point was about the metaphysics of religion and society. Whether they are true or not is not the point.

Yes indeed, the evidence that an atheist in law society does not end well, and it is precisely why i struggle to understand when atheists claim that such a society can be good. But what else would an atheist society be? What does a completely atheist society constitute of?

America is secular, not atheistic. There is an enormous difference between the two (hint: one position is effectively neutral on theological issues, and the other takes a hard-line stance on religious beliefs and practices.)

Also, your second statement is idiotic, due to the demarcation problem.

>the evidence that an atheist in law society does not end well

>a sample size of 3
>evidence
>even elementary statistics require you satisfy np > 15 n(1-p) >15
>even remotely significant data given lurking variables or communist idealism

That's why no one mentions this in a serious discussion m9.

>But what else would an atheist society be? What does a completely atheist society constitute of?

The two that tried to answer ITT, answered it by saying that he didn't know if it was better for societyAnd the other one said that the US was atheist and has always been atheist

>Atheism has predates Christ
>Only three societies

That's not a good argument for atheism or why an atheist society would be preferable

It's not an argument. It's the lack thereof. There's no argument to make because there's too little data to make one. If you're making one you're being presumptuous and/or obtuse.

So even though atheism as a concept was around before Christ, atheistic societies never formed because?

based on Ops pick Atheism seems to be a Jewish tought paradigm.

>congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Is not neutral and we can observe good people suffering which disproves an all loving god.

because public education has failed us all.
Atheists do not understand how logic or proof works. Logic is INCREDIBLY fallible.

1, humans are fallible.
2, humans operate on lack of information

there is ALWAYS lack of information and you are ALWAYS fallible.
And yet these cunts think they found "facts". They love that word. Fact. As if that means anything

it's a
>the truth doesn't matter we should believe things based on how they make me feel
thread

Is this b8?

Harris is redpilling normies like crazy on Islam

Oh, so you agreed that religious societies should be maintained?

He doesn't have a lot of time. They have positive birthrates, the founding stock of the west doesn't. Demography is destiny.

Because 3 of them are jews , and jews gotta rape christianity in the ass its in their blood

>an omnipotent cosmic deity is responsible for the birth of the universe, creation of mankind, etc etc
>morality can exist without belief in god

>pretending these things are even remotely comparable

Atheism requires a scientific understanding of the world to explain the things answered by religion. People in the past may have said "I don't believe in your God" but they wouldn't have been able to provide a counter answer to where animals came from or what the sun was.

>Cosmic deity,

most religions formed customs, and then belief, and as already stated, whether or not they are true is irrelevant

>morality can exist without belief in god

I've already addressed this ITT

>"I wouldn't like it if someone stole from me, so I won't steal from anyone else."

This isn't that fucking complex.

>Atheism requires a scientific understanding of the world to explain the things answered by religion

No, it doesn't, atheism isn't a philosophy, but a lot of atheists treat it like one.

>People in the past may have said "I don't believe in your God" but they wouldn't have been able to provide a counter answer to where animals came from or what the sun was.

Religion isn't just about belief, in a lot of religions that came later, so whether or not they are true is beside the point, it's about what makes a successful society tick and whether or not getting rid of religion is a net benefit or a net negative.

So laws should just be based on feelings?

>No, it doesn't, atheism isn't a philosophy, but a lot of atheists treat it like one.

Let me clarify what that user meant, for it to make more sense to be an atheist than not, you would at least need a foundation of principles and evidence that make it far more likely natural explanations are superior to ones that rely on a sky fairy (or the epic of Gilgamesh). In the absence of such evidence, atheism is as faith based as christianity and company, which fortunately it's not.

So laws should just be based on the feelings of borderline-schizophrenic zealots?

Those atheists are idiots that are little more than public figures.
Read Sartre instead.

>In the absence of such evidence, atheism is as faith based as christianity and company, which fortunately it's not.

So even though it's been around before Christianity, the only reason atheistic societies haven't formed is it was as big a leap of faith as Christianity?

Usually morals and principles derived from religion form the basis of our laws, whether or not these are perfect isn't the point, the point is this model has worked. Where is this successful atheist society? And what code of ethics backs it up?

>So even though it's been around before Christianity, the only reason atheistic societies haven't formed is it was as big a leap of faith as Christianity?

Fuck... just no. I think at this point you're having an entire different discussion. I don't care about the atheists before christian thing. In much the same way, I don't care about the Romans not having any recorded history of Christ. It's pointless talking about things we have very little information on. For all we know the Jesus was real and the Romans burned every record of him. It's pointless discussing it.

Show me a society based strictly on atheism and we'll talk.

Atheism is nothing more than the lack of a belief in god. You seem to think that it is more.

As the first post stated, I'm mostly talking about metaphysics and what makes societies function, every single atheist ITT just looked at the quote from hitchens and wanted to talk about whether or not specifically Christianity was true, which my post had nothing to do with. I don't care if religion is true or not, that wasn't the point, I probably could've made that clearer, but it's been stated multiple times throughout the thread.

It's very clear that I've been having a different conversation than every atheist ITT.

>Show me a society based strictly on atheism and we'll talk.

Read the thread, I've repeated that atheist societies don't really exist.

We're having two different conversations.

>every single atheist ITT just looked at the quote from hitchens and wanted to talk about whether or not specifically Christianity was true

I never even mentioned that. Methinks you're just shit at argumentation.

Then why the fuck did you ask me to provide one?

>just looked at the quote from hitchens and wanted to talk about whether or not specifically Christianity was true

"just"? I'd say it's a pretty relevant part of your discussion.

Not an argument.

Everything is based on the 3 pillars of FAITH

Atheists getting washed by the scientific betacucks

You're right, you just wanted to talk about whether or not atheism was true, totally different.
To ask why religious societies had formed instead of atheistic ones
Inasmuch as there's an absence of evidence for atheist societies being better than religious ones, but not in a theological context

lyceumphilosophy.com/?q=node/117

Required reading.

Reading level required: Age 13 and above

They put that in there because a lot of settlers left England because their religion was being prosecuted, so they put that in there so the state wouldn't have the power to ban religion, it's pro-religion in that context.

Again, is this b8?

>confirmed for shit reading comprehension

I'm not arguing the validity of atheism whatsoever. I'm saying that morality does not hinge on the belief in god.

Religious societies formed because of a historical precedence. Religion was necessary for the cohesion of society within the pre-englightenment era.

Fuck, you're dense.

But parts of religions are banned and if USA was a christian country they wouldn't have a separation of church and state.

If religion and God didn't exist would you suddenly engage in rape, robbery and other criminal activity?

>I'm saying that morality does not hinge on the belief in god.

I never said it did, but you first post was telling me you didn't read, so what should I expect.

>Religion was necessary for the cohesion of society within the pre-englightenment era.

This is on point though. And is not what the atheists in the picture believe, they've stated that it's an evolutionary trait, and are fine with getting rid of it despite the lack of evidence of how an atheist society functions.

And why isn't religion useful post-enlightenment? If this is true, then how come a country that started a new society post enlightenment and even made a show of usurping the Catholic Church in the process, still retained it's Catholicism after the fact?

>therefore, science largely depends on faith and should not be considered as more-- and perhaps should be considered as less--credible than religion.

Yeah I'm not reading further than that from someone who doesn't understand the scientific method.

Why would you include Sam Harris in that picture when he literally always talks about how a religion effects a society. Im surprised pol doesn't love him because he rags on Muslims non stop.

>with atheist morals
no such thing and strawman #1. There are no set of atheist morals, every atheist has their own morals as there are LITERALLY no rules and guidelines.

>Also, religion is an evolutionary trait that helped humans survive, but it's irrelevant now, because technology and comfort.
This is true. Its been observed about 10000x in the history of the planet. You should read up on those primitive tribes that worshiped the fighter jets that would bring them food back in the 40s and conisdered them gods.

>of these unfalsifiable assertions
They are all falsifiable and all have evidence. Stawman #3

You really are dumb arent you?

They wrote separation of church and state because the King of England was head of church in England and didn't want their religion persecuted by the state. Separated of church and state doesn't mean that religion is banned from public life, it meant that the church can't establish a religion and punish others.

Any atheistic policy would be banning religion

"The creator one and only" is a retarded as fuck idea. Mitosis is a creator. Sex is a creator. Physics etc. These are observable phenomenon and there Andre no strings being pulled by a spooky diety to make them happen. Religion is faith in ignorance.

Religion isn't an evolutionary trait you tard. Religion created an artifical sense of community and people literally bought into it. Community is the evolutionary trait not religion.

>every atheist has their own morals as there are LITERALLY no rules and guidelines.

So how would an atheist society establish legitimacy in their laws?

>This is true. Its been observed about 10000x in the history of the planet. You should read up on those primitive tribes that worshiped the fighter jets that would bring them food back in the 40s and conisdered them gods.

So, jet aircraft is the threshold for when a society can dump religion? Even though atheism predates Christ, none of those societies had enough technology to become atheistic?

I'm not arguing whether or not religion is true, what's relevant is whether or not religious societies are more successful and better than atheist societies

Because he believes that taking away religion in the US will improve society, despite the lack of evidence for this assumption

The worst is that god doesn't explain anything, he's just a black hole where we throw things we can't explain or demonstrate. If there was indeed a god wouldn't he question himself why he existed in the first place and who created him?

Theists will respond "yeah but he is god he has no creator, he is everything that is and ever was". Still doesn't explain anything.

Sam 'Free speech is good but people pursuing racial topics should be persecuted' Harris.

If your religion calls for mass murder it is banned from public life and the first amendment says you can't change that before it says you can believe in things with no evidence. Atheism is not so important that it needs to prohibit people from believing in magic.

>If your religion calls for mass murder it is banned from public life

It's not

>the first amendment says you can't change that before it says you can believe in things with no evidence.

What?

>Atheism is not so important that it needs to prohibit people from believing in magic.

Atheism's one requirement is not believing in God, unless you enforce this rule on the public, then it's not an atheistic law

I can't think of many atheist societies, besides China (which hasn't collapsed), but people there still believe in all sorts of superstitions outside of organized religion. I don't know who said it but it went something like "when people say they need religion what they actually mean is that they need police".

Take a loot at muslim societies wherein all people do with great fervour is fast and pray. What has country like Pakistan, with 180 million people, ever achieved? All they do is fuck, rape, pray, fast and stone or behead people they don't like. I guess in that aspect they are successful.

An atheist society is not inherently more moral because being atheist as no morals attached to it, other than not believing in a supernatural being and thus not following their arbitrary rules. In that sense, an atheist society would favour more rational approaches to abortion, relationships, eugenics, genetic modification, preservation of nature, child rearing etc etc. So they could be indeed more successful but I can't prove it.

>Financial statistics are baseless assumptions
>The populous don't know what they need
>plain ad-ingnorantiam

>I can't think of many atheist societies, besides China (which hasn't collapsed), but people there still believe in all sorts of superstitions outside of organized religion. I don't know who said it but it went something like "when people say they need religion what they actually mean is that they need police".

China is a strange case. Like you said, they are still superstitious, Mao's China made religious practice illegal, but if you wanted to argue that worship of Mao and the communist state was the defacto religion, then I wouldn't object. The other part of this convo that's been tricky is that religion isn't always predicted on a belief in a higher power, and faith can take place after the customs in some religions. China will become the largest Christian nation in my generation though, so it's not this stringent atheism we find in the west.

>Take a loot at muslim societies wherein all people do with great fervour is fast and pray. What has country like Pakistan, with 180 million people, ever achieved?

More of a race argument desu, and even then, Islam will it might not reach majority status in Europe in my generation, it might come close sans a black swan event, so while western European societies have gotten less religious, they are getting replaced. I should also point out that lack of religion isn't the only cause, however Christian whites have more children than atheist white couples, so low birthrates will only speed up europes replacement

>In that sense, an atheist society would favour more rational approaches to abortion, relationships, eugenics, genetic modification, preservation of nature, child rearing etc etc.

What would be the rational approach to these topics?

>So they could be indeed more successful but I can't prove it.

As hitchens stated, "anything asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"

What a surprise that 3 of the 4 in that image are kikes. Don't be fooled, atheism is Jewry rebranded.

>it's not
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Mateen
>mass shooter
>killed by police
Why are you wasting everyone's time?
>what?
It says religion is exempt from passing laws.
>Atheism's one requirement is not believing in God, unless you enforce this rule on the public, then it's not an atheistic law
Prohibiting theism from being law is an atheist law.

>Financial statistics are baseless assumptions

Induction fallacy

>The populous don't know what they need

If they did elections wouldn't be tightly contested

>Ad- ignorantia

Not an argument

Atheists:
I am God
Prove to me that I dont exist
Protip: Thou cannot

>Omar mateen

They didn't lock him up for his religion, they locked him up because he was a mass murderer

Is this b8?

>It says religion is exempt from passing laws.

Yes, as discussed, the founders didn't want anyone persecuted for their religion, because they came from a place where people left because the King was the head of the church.

Is this b8?

>Prohibiting theism from being law is an atheist law.

It's not, outlawing the practice of a religion(which is what the founders where worried about) is an atheistic law.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Is this b8?

>Didn't read. Christianity is faith based which is by definition belief without evidence.

Paul, when addressing the foundation for the Christian faith - the resurrection of Jesus - argues that He was seen alive after the crucifixion by 500 people at one time, and many of them were still alive at the time of his writing. MY faith, as a Christian, is eminently rational (though, obviously, it makes claims of the miraculous). Your second sentence is just an ad-hominem


you are wrong

It is arguable that a replacement is occurring in Europe but Europe is not atheistic as a whole, although Europe is certainly secular thus Islam can prosper. There are other events taking place here, that is the forced (illegal) importation of millions of migrants with a different culture into Europe, which is unprecedented in history. I don't see this as a fight of secular atheists versus baby-making mudshits because:

(1) the rules are not being followed by our rulers and (2) we are importing people from the third world into advanced societies with very different dynamics.

>What would be the rational approach to these topics?
A rational approach to those topics would be not being restricted by arbitrary religious morals like it being forbidden to abort people with genetic diseases because they are gifts of God and thus not preventing them an avoidable life of suffering and them being a burden on society or the welfare systems. Or religion fearing or killing homosexuals when it's just their brains being wired differently and they never harmed anyone, contrary to religious extremists.

>ad-hominem

Christianity isn't a person, user.