/atheism/ - Atheism

>why aren't all atheists the same? why can't they all behave and think the same AARRRHH

>>8468

If that is the case it explains everything.

The statues, the lack of logic, the incendiary remarks, the bait, and the overall lack of intellect.

Huehuehue.

>>8468

This almost makes me rethink my stance on the rights of great apes, kek.

>>8465

Ahhhh shit, there go my sides.

Thanks for the laffs, m8

>>8468

>>8470

So I'm new here, what with "statuefag" shitposting?

On a completely different topic:

Spirituality

Sam Harris has some interesting ideas about redefining spirituality as valuable states of mind, that can give people pleasure and insight, but he also carefully explains that spirituality is quite an independent concept from religion and deities.

He's a proponent of mindfullness meditation in that vein. As well as hallucinogens and other pharmacological agents.

Any thoughts? Experiences?

>>8476

Statuefag is a low quality christian troll who takes the fedora meme literally and makes alot of threads with this strawman.

>>8476

I don't like the idea. I do myself mindfullness meditation(not sure if it works or if it is a placebo but I don't see the harm).

-redefining things intensionally never works

-people will always associate spirituality with religious or hippy bs

-we don't have to label things that we think are useful with something that has no real meaning

-it's too easy to hijack a label like this with pseudo-scientific crap

>>8479

[x] privileged

I'm sorry.

>>8478

>redefining things intensionally never works

Arguably this is his only mistake. His overall gist when you take his definition is true. Humans are able to feel that "spirituality" what will you but it's just cells gasming in a nonsexual way.

>>8476

>>1508

>valuable states of mind

>>8477

I'm not him,though, I'm not even christian and I don't know who statuefag is, this is my second or third post in this board.

And I'm not baiting, I consider Harris' ideas retarded.

>>8486

>I consider Harris' ideas retarded

Which and why?

>>8496

I guess /int/.

>>8459

At least Sam Harris knows how to write. :^)

Being an atheist doesn't mean you can't be a retard. Reddit has already proved this multiple times (that /pol/ prank was glorious).

That being said, stupid religious folk typically outretard the extreme atheists. At least that's what I've seen.

>>8500

>that /pol/ prank was glorious

Never heard of it. What was the bait?

>>8487

His ideas about non-existence of self, specially when he begins to talk semi-mystical stuff, like the stuff people posted above. I know that there are many other scientists who criticize him on his ideas, but still.

>>8500

Yeah but I'm talking about important guys. Sam Harris isn't just a polemicist, he was already a somewhat respected specialist in neuroscience and an educated person. Though I confess I posted his pic because he's the most retarded I can think of.

>>8501

This. I never heard of it.

>>8502

>non-existence of self

Sam is often misquoted so can you show me where he says this? It seems to run contrary to what he seems to be getting at from what I've read.

>specially when he begins to talk semi-mystical stuff, like the stuff people posted above

Where he emphasizes that the religious experience is a neurological one. That's not mystical, he's just easily misunderstood.

>I know that there are many other scientists who criticize him on his ideas, but still.

Like?

>Though I confess I posted his pic because he's the most retarded I can think of.

You would've done better with an actual moron like PZ Meyers. There's an actual idiot.

>>8505

>PZ Meyers

Never heard of him

As for Sam Harris, will post the stuff tomorrow since it'll be a longer reply.

>>8506

He's a philosopher, right?

People like Richard Carrier don't bother me that much, he seems to be idiotic (the guy keeps a count of how many believers he debunked, FFS) but at least he doesn't derive absurd beliefs from his scientific work because he has no work to derive anything from.

My problem is with these scientists who are respected in their fields but poop shit out of their mouths when they begin discussing religion, atheism, philosophy of science and such.

>>8507

>derive absurd beliefs from his scientific work

Where should they derive their ideas from then? Their imagination? Then you get morons like Carrier. The fact remains science is the best methodology for forming our ideas about the world. Scientists are better equipped, contrary to your beliefs, in dealing with logical traps unlike non-scientists whose work does not have to be bound to physical reality. Meanwhile philosophers can just spout bullshit, never performing an experiment demonstrating any validity in their claims.

>>8508

Also there is something to be said of the lack of math in non-STEM education. I'm sorry but your assertion that scientists are less able to avoid logic traps doesn't add up.

>>8490

>Atheists get mocked

>MUST BE THAT DAMNED STATUEFAG

>Picture very related.

>no formation in philosophy

Durr, Harris has a degree in philosophy.

>>8511

>Degree in humanities

You realize these are all worthless right?

>>8510

If you don't want to get called statuefag, stop acting like him.

Lurk more.

>>8521

I don't see how that's funny, I agree with that quote regardless of who said it and I think many atheists would as well.

>>8516

Yeah, I do. So what? Can you please explain to me how this is relevant to the claim that he supposedly has no formation in philosophy?

See this is the reason why people called you statuefag because you made an inflammatory and poorly researched thread that offers nothing but your half-cooked assumptions.

On top of this, it's even riddled with spelling errors. But many posters of this board are not native English speakers(including myself) so no one called you out on this.

>>8521

Yeah, I remember that thread. Pretty much all votes came exclusively from /pol/ and everyone who called them out was downvoted by them. Pretty lame if you ask me.

>>8527

>you made an inflammatory and poorly researched thread

Do IDs mean nothing to you?

>>8516

IIRC Harris' PhD is in neuroscience

>>8478

Whether other people consider "spiritual" experiences to be manifestation of religion is there own problem.

Harris uses a word that is often used and widely understood to mean experiences of pleasurable, meainingful states of being or thought, that people have attributed to deities.

It is very easy to hijack "spirituality" to mean whatever the fuck you want it to, much like has happened with quantum physicis. How many homeopaths and other practitioners of bullshit have used "quantum entanglement" as an excuse for their bullshit?

But that doesn't mean that you can't have a meaningful conversation about what spirituality means, what it doesn't mean, and whether it is something that humanity can or should engage in or explore.

>>8502

>semi-mystical stuff

And that is how I know that you haven't actually read or understand Sam Harris.

Mindfullness meditation is an empirically tested and well established technique that reduces anxiety, improves depression, concentration in measurable ways.

The experiences that people go through when practising meditation can be called "spiritual".

Dismissing his ideas as "semi-mystical stuff", is to misunderstand what he is saying, and what he is proposing.

>>8521

Lame trolling. What does it prove? This quote could come from anyone even some religious person. Would this not work on a religious reddit? People are lazy on fact checking. More news at ten.

>>8519

>Disagreeing with an atheist means you're acting like statuefag

Try again.

>>8522

>Atheists agree with Hitler

Why am I not surprised.

>>8535

Yes, we may agree with Hitler on a few things. Don't really see the big deal. If Hitler said something it doesn't mean it's wrong.

He was kind of a tard on a lot of other things though.

>>8535

>Disagreeing with an atheist means you're acting like statuefag

Nobody said that that was the only thing that makes you sound like statuefag, but thanks for telling us that you are statuefag because this is the shit you pull in every thread.

>Atheists agree with Hitler

Or perhaps it's that we agree with wisdom regardless of who it comes from.

Why is it wrong just because Hitler said it?

>>8535

If you quotemine Ted Bundy you can probably find something you agree with. Does that mean you think everything he said or did was correct or see him as a role model? Don't be an idiot.

>>8459

I completely agree with you, OP. If you find yourself speaking with one of his followers, ask from where do they form the basis of their ethical system, and keep asking until you get to their bottom assumptions. It devolves into circular reasoning and an appeal to the masses (remember though, only the masses that count).

Secular ethics are arbitrary. There are no objective ethical values; only subjective appraisals of actions and phenomonons.

>>8567

Morality depends on other people. I think that's what you're calling "appeal to the masses". In a universe with no life morality would have no presence or purpose so obviously it's going to depend how people react to certain behaviors.

This could potentially spin off into a very long debate that I'm not incredibly eager to start. I would recommend watching this debate between Dr. Craig and Dr. Kagan as a starting point. Hard to say who "won" but I think Kagan was able to successfully argue a case for objective moral values without a need for a god. Only reason I suggest this is that both individuals are probably a lot smarter than you or I and can frame their points much more eloquently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo

Even if what you're saying is true. That morality is up to the whims of culture and bias I would still find that a stronger moral basis than the appeal to authority that most religions offer. The commands of the Abrahamic god for example often have nothing to do with morality. Such as forbidding masturbation or worshiping idols.

>>8567

>be OP

>use Tor to agree with OP

>????

>Profit?

>>8570

Yes. Morality depends on people. Which is why it's inherently subjective.

>The commands of the Abrahamic god for example often have nothing to do with morality.

Those commands make a moral system. They have everything to do with morality. They may be inconsitent, but they're a set of ethics nonetheless. We can write them off as meaningless because there's no good reason to believe in an Abrahamic god.

>>8571

>uses Tor

>must be a shill

Not everything has to be a conspiracy.

>>8572

jew detected.

>>8567

>>8459

none but you is making the assumption that reasoned, philosophical or proto-scientific ethical systems can be absolutely true. Accusing us implicitly and likely unknowingly of not knowing the fundamental problem of epistemology only shows that you are likely the uneducated retards who thought to stand a chance making an argument on the grounds that atheists haven't found absolute truths.

Moreover, considering that this retarded thread stems from an attack to atheism, which is defined in terms of a belief dichotomy, it is safe to assume that this piece also comes from theists. This is very funny because it means you are trying to equate or even deprecate dozens of thoroughly analyzed, much more virtuous ethical systems like kantian ethics, virtue ethics, social contract, rational egoism, etc., in favor of some shitty, badly-reasoned ancient list of moral commandments written by ignorant shepherds and warriors. No one in a philosophy department will take you seriously if you try to imply that your only your shitty dogmatic religion should be thought on professional ethics courses.

Dismissing someone's opinion as illogical simply because he is not an accredited expert on X or Y matter is a good fallacy by the way. Sorts of argument from authority. On a side note, Sam Harris is called "a philosopher" by reliable sources because of his work and literature, even though he is not formally such a thing. Also note that not only scientists, but also philosophers, are groups well known for having high numbers of atheism. So if not being a philosopher, logician or theologian automagically makes the new scientific embarks false, specially when the findings make you uneasy, we would still have to wait for philosophers and non-scientists to agree on something and convince us somehow that their unscientific conclusion is true.

Why don't you just come straight out of the closet as anti-scientific, butthurt literalist or whatever piece of shit you are instead of planting low-quality bait here? If anything, most philosophers from the last centuries are highly sympathetic of the scientific endeavor.

By the way, claiming that logics is part of philosophy in the 21st century is as ignorant as claiming that astronomy is a subject in Biblical studies. Non-bullshit logic nowadays is what we call formal logic, and it is more akin to be studied by mathematicians, not philosophers.

>>8476

statuefag was a christian, probably catholic, who tried to convince us over the course of a lengthy thread that his particular set of beliefs including belief in the existence of some kind of god was scientifically demonstrated by the allegedly unexplainable nature of some crying statue in a japanese convent. it happened some months ago

>>8476

statuefag was a christian, probably catholic, who tried to convince us over the course of a lengthy thread that his particular set of beliefs including belief in the existence of some kind of god was scientifically demonstrated by the allegedly unexplainable nature of some crying statue in a japanese convent. it happened some months ago

>>8506

the myth theory is unpopular but it doesn't make harm to have someone pointing out all the deficiencies (because there are really many) with the historical theory. in any case, the overwhelming majority of christians do not know about, or do not agree with the accepted historical Jesus theory, because it contradicts their faith and texts at length and because it is so thin that learning it can potentially give you a stumbling shot of reality regarding the historical basis of christianity.

>>8576

nigga, this is an attack on Sam Harris

>>8584

>>8583

why would you bump this shitty thread? If you don't SAGE you are probably the OP

OP says:

>…atheists coming up wtih retarded beliefs? >Picture very related (random picture of Sam Harris)

>>8584

what?

>>8572

Except that conspiracies involve more than one person.

>>8584

And statuefag's signature shines through.

>>8616

Damn, this deserves its own thread. So it doesn't get covered ITT after a few replies.

I guess it's because other sciences challenge religious narratives more directly because theories contradicting these narratives are elementary to them. In Biology you have evolution, in Physics there is the Big Bang theory and Geosciences have fossils and layers of sedimentary rocks and so on.

>>8616

Because chemistry has Second Law of Thermodynamics which implies that given enough time, the universe will experience heat death, which goes against the "the universe is infinite and always existed" idea.

>>8625

I'd say he is probably right. Although accepting evolution or the big bang doesn't necessarily lead one to be an atheist it certainly weakens ones faith in religion, at least as explanatory, this leads to more people seeing religion as unnecessary to explain the world with leads to more people rejecting it

>>8616

it's interesting considering that atomism was held anti-religious and turned out to be true