/bant/ - International/Random

[58 / 11 / ?]

47KiB, 496x547, 1513678664681.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Atheist logic

Anonymous ID:0+/BHZot Tue 19 Dec 2017 21:13:45 No.3397506 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3397611 >>3397619 >>3397630 >>3397743 >>3398087 >>3398305 >>3401143

The self doesn't exist

t. the self

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4qxDDFzR Tue 19 Dec 2017 21:22:25 No.3397611 Report

Quoted By:

>>3397506
crackhead

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4qxDDFzR Tue 19 Dec 2017 21:23:11 No.3397619 Report

Quoted By: >>3397916 >>3398067 >>3398132

>>3397506
Do you think there is something dark and forboding in this picture? what does it represent to you?

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4qxDDFzR Tue 19 Dec 2017 21:24:05 No.3397630 Report

Quoted By:

>>3397506
How is the concept of the self vacnt from the pseudoathiest denial of concepts like the soul, and not understanding dissociation or the religious practice that is actually factually experienced during the last 70000 years

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO agnostic-v-gnostic-v-atheist-v-t (...).png, 80KiB, 1087x1051

Anonymous ID:T+Y/t33f Tue 19 Dec 2017 21:34:26 No.3397743 Report

Quoted By: >>3397916

>>3397506

Atheism is only a lack of belief in a god or gods.

Atheism makes no claims of any kind.

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:ZcJ1Zp2r Tue 19 Dec 2017 21:35:46 No.3397754 Report

Quoted By:

Stay assmad religitard

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:eD+sgotB Tue 19 Dec 2017 21:40:59 No.3397818 Report

Quoted By: >>3397904 >>3398011 >>3398642 >>3398986

When considering a set of ideas one must first analyze the underlying assumptions they are based on to test whether they hold up to scrutiny. Atheism is a subset of materialism, which claims that only the material reality is the only thing that exists, and therefore there are no such thing as supernatural entities (no ghosts, no spirits, no souls, no gods, etc)

The materialistic model is based on circular logic and doesn't make any sense when critically examined because it is based in preposterous assumptions, namely that:

>1) everything that does not confirm materialism is a hallucination and doesn't 'exist'.
It's very easy to be always right when you can classify as hallucinatory any experience that contradicts your belief in materialism. It's called being close-minded.

>2) that for any proof to be valid it must be perceived with the five human senses, (which are arbitrary and tailored to confirm materialism)
>3) that for something to be true it must be able to be replicated by everyone, as if all humans without exception were equipped with exactly the same apparatus of perception
In the very same way that a minority of humans are deaf, blind or lack any other of these five senses, exists the possibility that some humans have senses yet to be discovered. A society in which 99% of people were blind would conceive rationalizations against the concepts of "color", "form" and "contrast" as eloquent and scientific as those which atheists make against anything non-material.

>4) That everything about the nature of the Universe can be deduced from what little have we observed in this tiny planet and its whereabouts.
Do you have an idea of how big is the Universe? How do you know that the materialistic model holds together in a greater cosmic scale?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO agnostic-atheist-quadrants.jpg, 53KiB, 639x506

Anonymous ID:T+Y/t33f Tue 19 Dec 2017 21:49:58 No.3397904 Report

Quoted By: >>3397965

>>3397818

>Atheism is a subset of materialism...

Atheism is not a subset of materialism.

Atheism makes no claim as to a fundamental substance in nature.

Atheism is only a lack of belief in a god or gods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:0+/BHZot Tue 19 Dec 2017 21:51:14 No.3397916 Report

Quoted By: >>3398105 >>3398602

>>3397619
Just a representation of self-reference

>>3397743
Tell me one atheist who doesn't believe that consciousness is a byproduct of chemical reactions in the brain

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:eD+sgotB Tue 19 Dec 2017 21:55:47 No.3397965 Report

Quoted By: >>3397993

>>3397904
Did you even bother reading the link you have given me?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO quote-when-you-have-no-basis-for (...).jpg, 51KiB, 850x400

Anonymous ID:T+Y/t33f Tue 19 Dec 2017 21:58:00 No.3397993 Report

Quoted By:

>>3397965

Do you have an argument to make?

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4qxDDFzR Tue 19 Dec 2017 21:58:09 No.3397996 Report

Quoted By:

It's not athiesm as aw roth it's athiest as an American English slang usage

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:0+/BHZot Tue 19 Dec 2017 21:59:27 No.3398011 Report

Quoted By: >>3398099

>>3397818
Pretty much this. Except for

>Do you have an idea of how big is the Universe? How do you know that the materialistic model holds together in a greater cosmic scale?

Astronomers have solid evidence that the universe works the same way everywhere.

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:0+/BHZot Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:04:29 No.3398067 Report

Quoted By: >>3398099 >>3398132

>>3397619
Also I think that the picture represents infinity, if you care. And infinity is a neat concept because it doesn't exist in the real world, yet we understand it very clearly and can work with it. I think that this by itself is a major red flag that there is something going on with consciousness that can't be reduced to a mechanical phenomenon.

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:2ayDGJYW Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:06:35 No.3398087 Report

Quoted By: >>3398111 >>3398453

>>3397506
You mean, the self as in "the soul"?
Yeah, that doesn't exist.
The self as personality, an ever-changing product of the brain function could be said to exist on a metaphysical level.
Stating that the self doesn't exist at all, because it's only made up of chemical reaction (parts, so to say) in our brains, would be mereological nihilism (Which is one of the more experimental strains of nihilism, not as "refined" as moral or epistemological nihilism), not atheism.

Not YHVH.

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO hermes_trismegistus.jpg, 117KiB, 471x667

Not YHVH. ID:eD+sgotB Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:08:02 No.3398099 Report

Quoted By: >>3398119 >>3398135 >>3398227

>>3398011
Dude you clearly don't know how big the Universe really is. I've crea... I mean there surely are other dimensions that we cannot perceive.

Remember that scientists cannot account for like 95% of the mass of the Universe according to the Big Bang theory. Atheism in a nutshell is the arrogant belief that we are, firstly, equipped to perceive everything that exists, and secondly that we therefore already know everything about the nature of the Universe or can deduce it from what we already perceive.

>>3398067
"The ALL is INFINITE LIVING MIND."

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:dGueB9CC Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:08:46 No.3398105 Report

Quoted By: >>3398453

>>3397916
>Tell me one atheist who doesn't believe that consciousness is a byproduct of chemical reactions in the brain
Even if every atheist in the world believed that it doesn't mean that it's a product of atheism. It's like implying that if every Christian believed in evolution, then evolution is a Christian concept.

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4qxDDFzR Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:09:14 No.3398111 Report

Quoted By:

>>3398087
annihilate

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4qxDDFzR Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:09:43 No.3398119 Report

Quoted By:

>>3398099
upi yp nigd

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:Cv8edz2b Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:10:33 No.3398132 Report

Quoted By: >>3398249

>>3398067
>>3397619
It's an ouroboros and OP is an alchemist in disguise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4qxDDFzR Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:10:38 No.3398135 Report

Quoted By: >>3398191

>>3398099
the idea of the nature of quantifying the universe is already bastardized. this should be done by remote viewing.

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4qxDDFzR Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:15:20 No.3398191 Report

Quoted By:

>>3398135
it says that nikoli tesla did that for inventions, so does this defy athiesm?

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:dGueB9CC Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:19:40 No.3398227 Report

Quoted By: >>3398264

>>3398099
>I mean there surely are other dimensions that we cannot perceive.
>Atheism in a nutshell is the arrogant belief that we are, firstly, equipped to perceive everything that exists, and secondly that we therefore already know everything about the nature of the Universe or can deduce it from what we already perceive.
I really like the irony here

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4qxDDFzR Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:21:45 No.3398249 Report

Quoted By: >>3398339

>>3398132
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
Doesn't it represent a certain type of dance, one that goes in a circular motion as dancing with a snake, or is there position retention or something NEGATIVE like THAT.

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4qxDDFzR Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:22:49 No.3398264 Report

Quoted By:

>>3398227
yes, this.

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4qxDDFzR Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:24:00 No.3398278 Report

Quoted By: >>3398309

But I meant did the athiest eating himself mean anything to you as users during the time it was... occuring? Do you have PTSD?

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4GzmMdnk Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:26:54 No.3398305 Report

Quoted By: >>3398315

>>3397506
Dumb nonsensical religitard

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4qxDDFzR Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:27:18 No.3398309 Report

Quoted By:

>>3398278
the holocaust of the americans is sure to solve this

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4qxDDFzR Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:28:03 No.3398315 Report

Quoted By: >>3398343

>>3398305
the holocaust of the americans is sure to solve this

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:Cv8edz2b Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:30:13 No.3398339 Report

Quoted By: >>3399539

>>3398249
It's a snake eating it's own tail, and it usually meant something along the lines of the cyclical nature of the universe/cycle of growth and decay/infinity and continuity of life or the limits of the known world (Egyptians/Andeans/Norse believed in a ouroboros circling the edge of the world). Think OP just used it to use it, really doesn't add any context to his arguments unless he's secretly a Gnostic, alchemist, or believes in Jorgummandr

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4GzmMdnk Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:30:43 No.3398343 Report

Quoted By:

>>3398315
Dumb religitard

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:0+/BHZot Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:39:50 No.3398453 Report

Quoted By: >>3398622 >>3399408

>>3398087
>>3398105
I don't see how you can be an atheist and not a "mereological nihilist" consistently, at least not without falling into some sort of panpsychism that would be completely analogous to God anyways.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tenor.gif, 2MiB, 320x214

Anonymous ID:T+Y/t33f Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:56:54 No.3398602 Report

Quoted By: >>3398619

>>3397916

>Tell me one atheist who doesn't believe that consciousness is a byproduct of chemical reactions in the brain

"Consciousness" does not necessarily equate to, or necessitate a "self".

"Consciousness" has different definitions, and the responsibility is yours to be more specific.

Atheism makes absolutely no claims to "consciousness".

I haven't taken a poll, but there are atheists who think some extremely strange things of "consciousness". Panpsychists, for instance, do not necessarily believe in a god or gods.

Pic also related. This atheist doesn't have any conception of "consciousness".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

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

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:0+/BHZot Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:59:14 No.3398619 Report

Quoted By: >>3398775

>>3398602
>"Consciousness" does not necessarily equate to, or necessitate a "self".
t. the conscious self

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:2ayDGJYW Tue 19 Dec 2017 22:59:40 No.3398622 Report

Quoted By: >>3398642

>>3398453
Simple.
You just don't believe in a god.
Whether you accept consiousness as a product of brain processes and as existing or not is not a question of atheism.
Atheism is not an ideology or a philosphy, it is the lack of belief and just that.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Ideologies may incorporate Atheism, but it's not an ideology itself, just like not smoking is not a habit and not playing golf is not a hobby.
What you're looking for is Antitheism.
Can't tell you much about that, since I'm not an Antitheist, I simply don't give a fuck about religion.

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:0+/BHZot Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:01:50 No.3398642 Report

Quoted By: >>3399273

>>3398622
>Whether you accept consiousness as a product of brain processes and as existing or not is not a question of atheism.
I still think it is. As >>3397818 pointed, atheism is a subset of materialism. If you grant consciousness its own existence, it follows that some form of God exists.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO [email protected], 50KiB, 504x196

Anonymous ID:T+Y/t33f Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:07:24 No.3398775 Report

Quoted By: >>3398962

>>3398619

As I said, "consciousness" has different definitions, and the responsibility is yours to be more specific.

There are definitions of "consciousness" that do not necessarily equate to, or necessitate a "self".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO miss-the-point.png, 4KiB, 400x400

Anonymous ID:0+/BHZot Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:10:52 No.3398962 Report

Quoted By: >>3399362

>>3398775
It is completely self evident what the self is and what consciousness is. Again,

>There are definitions of "consciousness" that do not necessarily equate to, or necessitate a "self".
t. the self

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:lRtokoty Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:11:20 No.3398986 Report

Quoted By: >>3399291 >>3399326

>>3397818
Atheism isn't a subset of materialism. All atheism entails is that a person does not believe in any gods. There are spiritual atheist.
>everything that does not confirm to materialism is a hallucination and doesn't exist
Many scientist are working to prove the existence of dark matter and energy. Neither of which would hold to our understanding of reality. Nobody considers these things materials or hallucinations.
>for any proof to be valid it must be perceived with the five human senses
Ask any scientist if they accept any of your senses as valid evidence to prove anything. Our senses are considered highly unreliable compared to repeatable test.
>for something to be true it must be able to be replicated by everyone, as if all humans without exception were equipped with exactly the same apparatus of perception
It doesn't matter how these test are perceived. What matters is that when repeated they provide the same results based on reliable data. Again, your senses don't matter. It's the numbers that the tests produce.
>everything about the nature of the universe can be deduced from what little have we observed
As opposed to what? We take what we understand and challenge that to expand our knowledge. Are you entailing that we shouldn't try to progress until we understand absolutely everything?

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:2ayDGJYW Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:14:51 No.3399273 Report

Quoted By: >>3399291

>>3398642
Consciousness has no physical existence itself, it is a concept, an abstraction that only exists on a metaphysical level.
The same applies to words like "morality", "politics" or "philosophy". They're no physically existing objects and neither are they precisely definable or observable actions or situations, they're mere concepts.

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:0+/BHZot Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:16:30 No.3399291 Report

Quoted By: >>3399297 >>3399437

>>3398986
>Neither of which would hold to our understanding of reality. Nobody considers these things materials or hallucinations.
Every physicist considers dark matter an yet to be discovered particle. Dark energy is more tricky, but it can simply be a cosmological constant added to Einstein's field equation.

>Our senses are considered highly unreliable compared to repeatable test.
>Again, your senses don't matter
The tests are still biased, since they are elaborated by us, with our perceptual limitations. Sure we can't see UV light, but we can detect it in indirect ways and claim its existence. But what about the things outside our perceptual scope? Also look up "scientism".

>>3399273
Refer to my first post. Ever heard of Descartes?

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:FJ7AzvVH Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:17:10 No.3399297 Report

Quoted By:

>>3399291
stay assmad religitard

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:0+/BHZot Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:19:36 No.3399326 Report

Quoted By:

>>3398986
Also
>spiritual atheist
This is literally a nonexistent category. It's like saying an atheist who finds religious texts interesting is "spiritual". It's meaningless to say he is spiritual if he doesn't believe in the objective existence of the spiritual world.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO final1.jpg, 14KiB, 500x456

Anonymous ID:T+Y/t33f Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:23:45 No.3399362 Report

Quoted By: >>3399387

>>3398962

>It is completely self evident what the self is and what consciousness is.

No. "Self" and "consciousness" are subjective terms.

To a Panpsychist, "self" and "consciousness" take on far different definitions.

As a gnostic atheist antitheist, I am relieved to not share those burdens.

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:0+/BHZot Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:26:27 No.3399387 Report

Quoted By: >>3399507

>>3399362
Both you, me, the panphychist, every gnostic atheist antitheist and everyone has first to have a mind/a self/a consciousness to then start wondering about these questions. It precedes everything, there is no escaping.

Is this not obvious?

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:dGueB9CC Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:28:23 No.3399408 Report

Quoted By:

>>3398453
I'm sorry you feel that way

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:2ayDGJYW Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:30:50 No.3399437 Report

Quoted By: >>3399488

>>3399291
The whole concept of the self, the consciousness is merely the brain's attempt to explain itself.
The problem with the brain is, that it works in up to 11 dimensions (https://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-discovers-your-brain-actually-works-in-up-to-11-dimensions), while we can consciously only think in 3 dimensions.
There's no need to make up a deity in an attempt to explain something we probably cannot possibly comprehend.
What makes understanding consciousness so hard is not that there's some kind of "souls" in there, it's that it's complicated as fuck.

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:0+/BHZot Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:33:49 No.3399488 Report

Quoted By: >>3399561

>>3399437
>The whole concept of the self, the consciousness is merely the brain's attempt to explain itself.
The position that the self is "merely" <insert whatever you find more fundamental than the self> is not a valid one.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO maxresdefault (1).jpg, 83KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous ID:T+Y/t33f Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:35:05 No.3399507 Report

Quoted By:

>>3399387

>Both you, me, the panphychist, every gnostic atheist antitheist and everyone has first to have a mind/a self/a consciousness to then start wondering about these questions.

That is from the perspective of someone who perceives a state or location in which there is not a mind/self/consciousness.

>It precedes everything, there is no escaping.

Panpsychists are weird... but they escape it... at least intellectually.

>Is this not obvious?

To everyone? Universally? No.

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:4qxDDFzR Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:37:20 No.3399539 Report

Quoted By:

>>3398339
If you'd had the dream you'd understand.

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:2ayDGJYW Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:38:41 No.3399561 Report

Quoted By: >>3399607

>>3399488
Fantastic answer there, absolutely wonderful.
>A position that opposes my ideology is categorically invalid
If you can't answer properly, excluding an argument seems to be the best way to get out of it.
Why is it not a valid one?
Does it insult your oh-so-powerful god?
How is anyone supposed to argue with you about religion if you only accept ways of thinking that agree with yours?

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:0+/BHZot Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:42:18 No.3399607 Report

Quoted By: >>3399625 >>3399749

>>3399561
>How is anyone supposed to argue with you about religion if you only accept ways of thinking that agree with yours?
I ask the same.

>Cogito ergo sum[a] is a Latin philosophical proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think, therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed.[1] It appeared in Latin in his later Principles of Philosophy. As Descartes explained, "we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt...." A fuller form, penned by Antoine Léonard Thomas, aptly captures Descartes’s intent: dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum ("I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am"). The concept is also sometimes known as the cogito.[2]

What do you think of this rationale?

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:dGueB9CC Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:43:56 No.3399625 Report

Quoted By:

>>3399607
If you're going to read WIkipedia at least read the criticisms of the cogito on that very page. Take a look at Kierkegaard's

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:2ayDGJYW Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:53:52 No.3399749 Report

Quoted By: >>3399768

>>3399607
>What do you think of this rationale?
Not much.
I think, the existence preceeds the essence when it comes to humans, specifically the human mind.

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:0+/BHZot Tue 19 Dec 2017 23:55:05 No.3399768 Report

Quoted By: >>3399950

>>3399749
>the existence preceeds the essence
What does that mean?

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:+YyvvN8y Wed 20 Dec 2017 00:09:31 No.3399950 Report

Quoted By: >>3400029

>>3399768
I am, therefore I think.
Before you can even become a person, you have to be born and your mind will be influenced by certain external factors as well as your own genes. (Which could actually also be external factors in this case)
Your consciousness is not there from the beginning, it will develop itself over the course of not only your childhood, but your entire life.
This follows the "Tabula Rasa" principle, the mind is empty and there is no conscious knowledge in the beginning. (Not including any innate skills, inherited instics or genotypical or phenotypical particularities which may influence cognitive functions)

Anonymous

Anonymous ID:0+/BHZot Wed 20 Dec 2017 00:15:11 No.3400029 Report

Quoted By:

>>3399950
I still think it makes no sense, because without thinking you wouldn't even be able to recognize yourself as being. You at least put it in a more articulate way, without going full "your consciousness is an illusion".

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1513037093748.jpg, 196KiB, 480x657

Anonymous ID:V/p0h40d Wed 20 Dec 2017 01:57:06 No.3401143 Report

Quoted By:

>>3397506
>LOGic

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Atheist logic