/his/ — Atheism is peak brainlet sonic the hedgehog enjoyer worldview

This is the level of debate christlards and irony poisoned trolls have devolved to
pictures of sonic the hedgehog
which all say and mean the same thing

>>18523749 (OP)
Plenty of atheists have coherent frameworks of ontology and epistemology.

>>18523760
>Plenty of atheists have coherent frameworks of ontology and epistemology.
Name one.

>>18523760
Can you name one that doesn't quietly borrow its foundational assumptions from a tradition it publicly rejects?

>>18523763
Nature doesn't require an agent for patterns to exist, retard.

>>18523762
Graham Oppy

>>18523773
What is "nature" without a prior framework for what counts as real? and where did that framework come from?

>>18523775
Who (literally)? What does he base his framework on?

>>18523762
The fuck you mean name one
is having that level of intellectual thought a form of currency or what? do you want me to go knocking door by door asking each retard who calls himself an atheist "ugh whats ur ontolgy" and then come back with a census? may i remind you, your level of intellectual thought is: "GOD DID IT AND IF WE DO NOT DO WHAT HE SAYS WE BURN IN MAGIC LAVA FOREVER LIKE THE WOMAN DECEIVED BY THE TALKING SNAKE!!! DDD:"
go fucking get lynched by your equally mentally retarded christian friends you fucking lard waste of oxygen

>>18523763
No one "borrows from the christian worldview". I don't know where you guys got this shit from and why you run presupp/TAG but it is extremely philosophically illiterate.

>>18523776
Nature doesn't require a prior framework by definition. What's your evidence that there's a god making patterns possible?

>>18523781
>The fuck you mean name one
I mean you literally can't. It's a rhetorical question.

>>18523784
Who said anything about God, and why did you assume that was the only alternative to your framework?

>>18523749 (OP)
This is a survey of the percentage of modern philosopher's beliefs
https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/all
I cant find a more recent one. Anyway, the majority of philosophers are atheists and also realists about knowledge and truth, so it's clearly the case that most atheist philosophers are not in a "postmodern state of denying that there is truth"

>>18523790
>the majority of philosophers are atheists
The majority of "philosophers" are academoids with a degree in autistically dissecting/regurgitating the works of actual philosophers, of which there are few to none currently alive.

>>18523789
I didn't assume anything schizo but I accept your concession that there's no evidence for god.

>>18523794
>t-they don't count
The greatest ancient and premodern philosophers were also atheists.
The heckin' church fathers were not real philosophers btw

>>18523773
>>18523784
>>18523798
Why are you trying to copy my argument when you don't know what it is? You gotta relax anon

>>18523799
They literally don't as demonstrated by the fact that you can't even name any of them.
>my subjective opinions about greatness
I don't care.

>>18523798
When did a question become a concession?

>>18523801
What's your argument, retarded schizo?

>>18523806
I did though

>>18523807
When you failed to explain why patterns can't exist without god.

>>18523809
>I did
Quote their names, then. Protip: if your next post contains no names or ctrl+f on the names returns no results, you're a confirmed schizophrenic.

>>18523810
Did I fail, or did I simply refuse to accept your definition of "patterns" and "exist" as settled, which was rather the whole point?

>>18523813
>>18523775
There's also guys like Graham Priest who works on paraconsistent logic, Alex Malpass who does work on logic as well, Dennett who died two years ago now, Quine who died some time ago but is a major modern philosopher, etc

>>18523824
OH also guys like Tim Maudlin are very interesting on the foundations of physics. One could say that Sean Carroll is a philosopher as well but he's a scientist first and foremost. Even someone like Scott Aaronson, although he's a computer scientist he engages in philosophy a lot as well.

>>18523824
>There's also...
There's no "also". You gave up when asked to specify what literally who's framework is based on.

>>18523844
You asked for names of some modern philosophers and I gave them

>>18523846
>You asked for names of some modern philosophers
I didn't but I accept your concession.

>>18523749 (OP)
>Mom I posted it again

>>18523749 (OP)
Isn't this thread already on the board

>>18523879
No, the original didn't have a brainlet sonic the hedgehog AIslop meme.

>>18523781
This is not how sane people respond to logical challenges.

>>18523781
This is a fallacy of personal incredulity thobeit calm down son

>>18523763
Christian logic is reliant on Plato and Aristotle, who would have hated Christianity.

>>18524056
That reminds me, a lot of early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr claimed Socrates was “proto-Christian,” but he really wasn’t. His last request before his execution was literally to sacrifice a rooster to Asclepius and he believed he was following the will of Apollo based on the Oracle of Delphi proclaiming him to be the wisest man in Athens. The actual reason he was executed was because several of his followers became the thirty tyrants who terrorized Athens (hence why he was charged with “corrupting the youth.” Athens declared a political amnesty after restoring democracy, meaning that the court could not legally charge Socrates for past treason, so vague charges like “corrupting the youth” allowed prosecutors to punish him for the results of his teachings without violating the amnesty). The idea that he “rejected pagan gods” is largely a myth, what he did reject was the traditional anthropomorphic depiction of the gods and the myths surrounding them, not the gods’ existence or worship which he viewed as legitimate. When Socrates claimed that true gods should not be humanlike or temperamental like the myths portray them as, he wasn’t using it as proof the gods weren’t real but rather as proof that Homer was slandering the gods.

Funnily enough though, many of his critiques of traditional myths also apply to Christianity and later opponents of Christianity like Celsus and Emperor Julian used those exact same arguments in their critiques of Christianity. Socrates believed that the divine are perfect, transcendent beings and in this worldview, the idea of a god becoming a man of flesh and blood and allowing himself to be crucified and experience any sort of pain or suffering is downright degrading. Not to mention that the Hebrew Bible depicts God as a wrathful, jealous being prone to emotional outbursts which is incompatible with the Socratic belief that the divine must be changeless and immune to emotional outbursts.

>>18523785
name one christian with 180+ iq
oh cant?
oh waow what an amazing rhetorical question i just pulled right

Christniggers stop parasitizing on ancient Greek philosophy.
Thank you.

>>18523762
Marxism

>>18523749 (OP)
The Sonic Hedgehog gene (SHH) is a master regulator that acts as a chemical signal during embryonic development. It is essential for cell growth, determining cell specialization, and shaping the bodies of most vertebrates—from brain division and facial features to the growth of limbs and digits.

File: 1767478525360.png (216 KB, 418x543)

>>18523749 (OP)
Your entire argument is based on the presumption that a conclusion needs to depend on its premises for all time.

You cannot draw a true inference from a false assumption and later on correct.

Why do you believe it?

Even worse, the core of your reasoning appears to be:
> That a vast majority of people hold the believe in X, something good y will happend
> Therefor, we need to let the vast majority believe in X, no matter if X is true or false.

This argument can be reduced to the point of Plato's noble lie. Though you can assert that a noble lie exists, the intellectual tradition of rationality you assign to the West would not allow it.

In the modern, Western academic view, everything has to be made public in order to allow experimental replication, testing, and critique. If there are some beliefs that are false yet socially so useful that we need to hold them anyway, then these beliefs would be excluded from the process of replication and peer review.To put it simply, either your current mode of discovery of the truth is the best one, or noble lies exist...

>>18523763
Russell, Quine and Satre, just to name a few.
For my knowledge, Feynman, too.

>>18523782
Anon is not entirly wrong.
Some atheists take their moral or basic assumpetion from ideas developed through Christian theological history.

We need to remember:
A -> B doesn't mean that B has to be wrong in the case of A is wrong. B can be true and A can be false. The logical inference just preclude the possibility that A is true and B not.

>>18523794
>"No true philosopher would disagree with me on my religious prejudicies".

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

>>18523799
>The greatest ancient and premodern philosophers were also atheists

Why are you guys so insufferable ignorant?

It is still true that during historical ages, the argument that some kind of intelligence produces the different kinds of natural life forms was very sound. If you put yourself in the position of an actual truthseeking scholar from the Middle Ages or the Age of Reason, you would ask yourself the question "where did these different animals and plants come from, and why does it appear that there is an inherent purpose, a Telos, in them?" and at this point, the answer that a deity planned and created it would seem very natural and plausible.

It wasn't until Kant and Darwin that this lost its plausibility. Kant, with his "Kritik der Urteilskraft", states that the human mind attributes intention to nature, but we are still not justified in believing in an actual intention. Darwin, of course, explains apparent purposes in nature through selection and random change.
These two attacks from different angles undermine the argument for generations later on.

>>18524340
>Russell, Quine and Satre, just to name a few.
None of them did anything to justify their presupposition that rationality is even possible.

>>18524317
>Your entire argument is based on the presumption that a conclusion needs to depend on its premises for all time.
Not at all. Feel free to justify the relevant conclusions by other means, so that they remain actual conclusions and not arbitrary presuppositions you feel comfortable borrowing because your intellectual superiors established them logically first.

File: not-an-argument-57b7f21381b05.jpg (33 KB, 567x565)

>>18523781
>atheists believe nothing because atheism is a non-belief

>>18524340
>>"No true philosopher would disagree with me on my religious prejudicies".
Whom are you quoting? I don't have prejudices against mentally ill people but you're hallucinating and that's inappropriate for an intelligent discussion.

>>18524374
>None of them did anything to justify their presupposition that rationality is even possible.

First of all, the question "How is Rationality even possible?" is a valid one.
Yet, thinkers from Chinese history and the old Greeks had ask themself this questions long before the rise of Christianity.

Second, I admit that there is a point at which some kind of Deism appears more plausible than the evolutionary worldview of Atheism.
This point is the question of whether our shared human intellect, the faculty of recognition, is capable of inquiring into and understanding the world. If we accept it as granted that the same creator who brought this world into being also made the human intellect, then it appears much more rational to infer that the intellect can understand the world.

Evolution as such merely demands the faculties of an animal to be good enough to survive and reproduce. This, unfortunately, doesn't include the faculty to understand the universe. It could very well be that there is a boundary stone, hammered into our intellect itself, which states, "until here, you have been guided by an inner light, now you're deaf in perfect darkness...".

Yet, this doesn't mean we should reject our own intellect and act as if we do not know. Atheists can form an argument on the base of what we know about history, science and philosophy.

Third, in practice, Christians assume that our intellect works correctly, just as everyone else. I mean, the entire concept of a proof of God would be meaningless if proofs only work if God exists. The apologetics put too much effort into a rational justification to think otherwise. (I know there is a bit sophistery, here.)

>>18524382
>Whom are you quoting? I don't have prejudices against mentally ill people but you're hallucinating and that's inappropriate for an intelligent discussion.

C'mon.

>>18524428
>the old Greeks had ask themself this questions
Right. So what's the classic answer in Western intellectual tradition? :^)

>this doesn't mean we should reject our own intellect and act as if we do not know.
Who said you should?

>Atheists can form an argument on the base of what we know about history, science and philosophy.
They can "form an argument" but can they justify their means of argumentation?

>>18524428
>Christians assume that our intellect works correctly, just as everyone else.
Assuming things is not philosophy. Philosophy is when you justify your assumptions.

>the entire concept of a proof of God would be meaningless if proofs only work if God exists.
Why? This is a nonsensical statement.

>people are actually trying to run presupp
Reminder that screaming "christ is kang" is not a justification for rationality.

>>18524376
>Feel free to justify the relevant conclusions by other means, so that they remain actual conclusions and not arbitrary presuppositions you feel comfortable borrowing because your intellectual superiors established them logically first.

What is a valid justification of a assertation?

You seems to insists that a valid justification needs to be a logical inference. Logical inferences, however, need a premisses. So, you asks for something impossible.

>>18524434
>Right. So what's the classic answer in Western intellectual tradition? :^)
To my knowledge, Aristotle believe that under normal circumstances, our Reason works fine.

>They can "form an argument" but can they justify their means of argumentation?

I can, to some degree. As you can.

>>18524438
>Philosophy is when you justify your assumptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

Aristotle starts with "first principles." Kant postulates synthetic a priori knowledge. Modern theorists need axioms. You need to start somewhere, this is true.

>>18524439
Agree.

>>18524374
>None of them did anything to justify their presupposition that rationality is even possible.
This is a straight up lie

>>18524441
>>18524445
>To my knowledge, Aristotle believe that under normal circumstances, our Reason works fine.
That's not a congruent reply. Try again.

>everything else you wrote
Good job figuring out that you can't get something out of nothing. That doesn't mean you get to just assert whatever you like because it sounds reasonable to you subjectively and treat it like an axiom.

How come christkikes consistently conflate rationality with faith in jewish fairytales?
[reddit space]
Why don't they stop parasitizing on the Western intellectual tradition and invent their own semitic alternative from first principles?
[reddit space]
How come their attempts usually end up in stuff like jewish denial of reality?

>>18524446
>This is a straight up lie
Ok, what did Sartre (whose name you retards can't even spell correctly) do to justify it? Protip: your next post will contain seething and deflections but no answer.

>>18524455
Retard, you said "none of them". Quine very much argued for how rationality is possible

>>18524456
I accept your concession wrt. Sartre.
> Quine very much argued for how rationality is possible
Ok, what valid argument did Quine put forward to justify rationality?

Protip: your next post will contain seething and deflections but no answer.