Have anyone who has read Dawkins (Selfish Gene, maybe Extended phenotype), Nietzche, Stirner, Stade, Denett...

Why do atheist retards unironically think that science in anyway disproves religion. I've read Stirner, Plenty of Dawkins, a couple of Dennett's books, and most of Nietzsche's work. I'm still Christian.

>whats the point of hating him?
> fathers all humanity
> never calls

Well, that depends on whether you accept God's megalomaniacal boasting as true. When I say God I mean the entity known as Yaweh, naturally. Personally, I very much doubt the claims to omnipotence, omniscience, etc

reason alone is nothing.

When I was eight years old my father sat me down and deprogrammed me - i had been taught some vague 'sky daddy' protestantism at school - then reprogrammed me with the arguments he had read in 'The God Delusion'. I remember passing on these ideas to a friend while climbing a tree a few days later. In assembly at school I stopped bowing my head for prayer and sat upright with my eyes open, you could look around and see who the other atheists were since all the Christians had their eyes closed and heads bowed. To begin with there were not very many, though by the time I reached the end of primary school it was almost half the year group. Privately, I would still often address my thoughts to God, act as if my actions were subject to a higher judgement and, under extreme duress, I would sometimes privately pray.

At the age of about fourteen I had a Religious Education lesson at my secular secondary school where we were asked to line up in three lines of atheists, theists and agnostics. I lined up as an atheist but was surprised to see that most of my class (a top set) were agnostic and that the agnostic line contained some of the people I respected most. This caused me to reconsider my identity as an atheist, and to admit the fact that I was still a theist on a fundamental level (as per the end of the previous paragraph), though I had been an atheist intellectually.

I did some reading online and came to the conclusion that my beliefs could be classed as 'agnostic theism' - belief in god that recognizes that god is completely unknowable.

At the age of nineteen I had a monday off of work (in a retail job) which I spent sitting in a big field with a good view in the sun. I didn't bring my phone or any other distractions and thought through a lot of things about my life, without a specific goal in mind. I ended up spending a long time trying to define what 'i' was - a retail worker? no, its just a part time job; a student? no, im not even studying currently; a boyfriend? a brother? a son? how can my identity be dependent on the existence of others? it seemed to clash with the notion of an atomistic self we find in 'cogito ergo sum' (more programming from my dad); am i my thoughts? well i still exist when im not thinking things, and many of these programmed thoughts arent exactly my own.

I found I had to go quite far back to point to anything that made sense as me, I think I succeeded but by that point I wasnt thinking in words so its impossible to convey exactly where I ended up, but it was roughly around the area of 'i am my basic conscious experience'. At this point it became very clear that the same is true for everyone else and that we seem to derive our existence from something beyond ourselves, and it became obvious that the chain lead to something that can only be described as a God.

I used to be an atheist.

When I was 16, however, I was filled with crippling anxiety. I fell for the buddhist meme, and started reading about Buddhism. For some reason I don't recall now, I also started studying the New Testament. Then I saw some similarities, and ways that one filled the other's gaps. My intention was finding some cure for my suffering -- a psychological cure. I didn't believe in spiritual shit.

So I started meditating. And one day, spontaneously, it all clicked. God exists.

I say that to believe, I first had to become an atheist. Blind belief didn't work for me. I was looking for Healing in Transcendence. I ended up getting my healing then, but it was like a small stone on the wayside, compared to Road that had itself opened to my eyes.

This revelation was not some deep mystical experience -- I had those, though this one wasn't one of them. Rather, it was a very logical insight.

So yeah, I believe that atheism is essential. Just keep looking, keep questioning. Don't accept things that don't make sense to you. However, have in mind that some things that don't make sense to you now may make sense later on.

>started to bielieve in god afterwards ?
Yeah, but I got into theistic satanism, so whether or not that's better is debatable.

Muh God doesn't abide to neo-liberal moral standards therefore I must hate him. You're pathetic.

I am an atheist insofar as I believe I do not exist in any spiritual sense. I think my consciousness is brain activity and when I die, I decompose and completely lose my mental capabilities.

It has nothing to do with that. It’s a matter of conflicting interests. God has his interests, we have ours, and they do not coincide. God wants us to be his “humble servants”, to obsess over him, to think about him all the time, to be absolutely obedient to him. No thanks. Humanity doesn’t need that bullshit. We have our own issues to deal with. God can fuck off.

*sends you to eternal damnation*
psh, nothing personal kid, i'll enjoy your screams!

You're assuming God is a human or has human-like qualities. Humanity to God is like fish in a tank at the doctor's office compared to us. Even if we could escape the tank we'd never be able to comprehend it.

*appears to you from the sky*
*tells you to kill your son*
*sends an angel to tell you I was just trolling and now you're based and the head of my new chosen race*

wow, so deep and profound so inhuman and beyond understanding

Religion of the Self is the only way, everyone you listed is bent on and succeeded in annihilating the instinctive unconscious collective

How do you know what God is like? I’m basing my assessment on his actual conduct (as described in the Bible), not his statements about himself (which could be deceptions). His actual conduct suggests neediness, greed, deceptiveness etc. Meanwhile, he claims that he is all-powerful and that he created the universe lmao. Ok, guy. Why does he expect people to believe that?

Because if you don't believe it he'll torture you for eternity, he can't prove that though you just have to take it on faith.

Give some explanations

Me, I've read all of them But their arguments didn't convince me since they never attack the actual problems We have as religious people and build an argument from that, rather they build authistic ad hominem and expect anyone that knows his shit to just accept them. Like when they define the belief in Eternal life as life denying or Heaven as "boring" or "static"; which must be the most brainlet and assbackwards things I've ever read in my life.

>God is basically beyond reason
Wrong. God MADE reason, He's It's source and the reason the world makes sense. He promises that all secrets shall be revealed. The fact that you don't understand something Now is irrelevant.

>Nietzche
He made me believe. A salty weak faggot like him can only be wrong.

Why would he create a universe he hates? To torture us?

God feeds off pain like we feed off food. He cannot survive without pain and suffering. So he created many realities and filled them with beings who will suffer in order to get as much suffering as pain as possible.

I've already clarified that I believe he is lying about creating the universe

God creared man in His image so yes, God IS humanlike as much as man is godlike

Whatva shallow and retarded understanding of a profound message.
Well done, you outscummed yourself.

just checking if i am still blocked

>At this point it became very clear that the same is true for everyone else and that we seem to derive our existence from something beyond ourselves, and it became obvious that the chain lead to something that can only be described as a God.
There's the classic mistake - you place way too much faith in reason, not too little. Read some Hume and Kant to take care of this particular problem.

>He cannot survive without pain and suffering.
Then he's not god but your private ad hominem of Him. Next.

Then he's not god but your private ad hominem of him.
I believe in the alpha and the omega, the origin and end of the universe not in some demon. Even If your demon exist the argument for God's existance remains valid.

Both Hume and Kant wouldn't contend against Aquinas's arguments.

Yeah, but I'm talking about Yaweh from the Bible. If you're a Christian or a Jew then my criticisms apply.

Of course there are. You shouldn't underestimate the power of existential despair. Many of these 'believers' will simply lie to themselves, endlessly repeat long debunked fallacious arguments and weasel their way into emotional concepts such as faith, all to silence that little voice in their heads that keeps telling them to just give up and accept the world as it is. Such is the toxicity of human hope. It takes the sufferings of man, stretches them out even further until the point of banality. People like that aren't even treated with contempt, they are merely pitied

No That's the point You're not.

Yes I am. As I clarified, I'm basing my assessment on his actions not his words. He might claim to be "the alpha and omega" but he acts like a beta and a fag.

>implying that a name matters
Only God matters and there is only one God.

If you worship the one described in the Bible it does matter

In What ways

>the world makes sense
Im sure they thought this too

Attached: A pile of bodies awaits cremation after the bombing of Dresden, 1945 (1).jpg (1080x766, 195K)

>implying that christians worship a god desribed in a book and not the actual God

They worship the God described in the Bible, otherwise what use would they have for a book that describes such a pernicious and petty deity?

This is what I also believe, and I have conflicting thoughts and emotional reaction towards my own death. Some times I have panic attacks and become really sad, especially when I think that dying is forever. But again at other times, I'm not sure if it is some kind of repression mechanism, I think to myself: I only fear death because I'm alive right now. And I think of all the facts current scientific knowledge has to say about us and the universe. After all existence is not this PERFECT state, life itself is irrational and goes nowhere, it has no meaning, we are ultimately a weird ape that seem to have evolved crazy cognitive abilities, but our fundamental nature is shared with every other animal. There's nothing transcendental or special about us. Therefore in the grand scheme of things our existence in this universe is NEUTRAL, just like rocks and grass and sea. We are just more complex, but we are no more "important". Our sense of self importance is the product of our cognitive/emotive abilities that wants to stay alive, reproduce and all for irrational organic purpose. And this calms me. Because I know its all human Hybris to want more than our nature assigned for us. The world existed for billions of years before each of us.. Millions of living beings lived and died before me.. Why should I have a sense of greater importance. This self righteousness that is found in the common man is just a delusion of self importance. And this calms me.

These issues were born BECAUSE humans rejected God. People like you are our downfall.

The Selfish Gene made me an ethno-nationalist.

What they thought, particularly in the height of suffering when one is particularly far from an objective state of mind, is irrelevant to the fact hay the world makes sense.

>God wants us to be his “humble servants”, to obsess over him, to think about him all the time, to be absolutely obedient to him.
You see This is What happen when you listen exegesys from litteral satanists.
No fucktard, God loves you and will admit you to the Kingdom where your nature will be Exalted and Fulfilled rather than repressed If you love Him back.
His interests are absolutely yours. There's no real peace or real fulfillment or real Love outside of God. Everything that you always felt you lacked; yours forever.
OR You can chase THOTs in hell. Feel free.
You litteraly listen to people who super baby hate Him and took their opinion, itonically, as gospel.

this

>What they thought, particularly in the height of suffering when one is particularly far from an objective state of mind, is irrelevant to the fact hay the world makes sense.
Wrong. It's only when you're safe and in your comfortable environment that you can afford to believe in God and all the transcendental stuff. It's because you're safe that your mind can conjure all those illusions. It's a cope. And the true state is danger.

>Wrong. It's only when you're safe and in your comfortable environment that you can afford to believe in God and all the transcendental stuff.
The exact opposite of truth. God is believed in with more fervor the more one suffers. This is something that is so Well know and so obvious that now that I've pointed it out You'll spit the classic "God is just a crutch for weak people" rhetoric which You use to complement the "God is only an idle Fantasy" rhetoric You just used.

I'm not gonna be dragged into an argument with a theist, there is no point. I am for freedom of belief, I respect theists but I demand mutual tolerance for my lack of belief.

>I'm not gonna be dragged into an argument with a theist, there is no point.
Out fucking skilled. Flee back to your hugbox

kekk well he did sound like an insecure fag though

Im on the verge. Used to be clear cut atheist. But many atheist scientists like Dawkins just spout wishful thinking that is incomplete. If the universe had a beginning, that’s something to be cautious about. If there is a creator, it is neither good nor bad and definitely not biblical.

I just said I personally have no interest in debating you. Debate some other user if you like.

I had a prolonged series of existential crises around age 16-20 when I had just started to get into philosophy, and of course even if I was reading a mixture of real deal philosophy and more pop-accessible stuff, I was better able to process the latter and consequently more effected by it in the short term. Long story short, I was disproportionately influenced by easily digestible pseudo-philosophies and worldviews like scientific naturalism, materialism, physicalism, and problems like hard determinism and the hard problem of consciousness, before I was really equipped to think for myself. I guess these days you'd say I went through a "Youtube/Reddit philosopher" phase, though neither of those sites were really a thing at the time.

I started to find reductive or "eliminationist" materialism and scientism stupid pretty early on, if only because its proponents were so fucking loud and sure of themselves, even in cases where there were obvious gaps. So I think I just grew out of that shit organically, even though it gave me a bleak and Reddit-y "fuck yeah atheism!" worldview for about a year and I was probably a really annoying seventeen year old.

It was mainly the determinism thing that made me break down though, and the general feeling of meaninglessness, the overdetermination of human beings by meaningless nature. I never found any of the common existentialist or quietist (stoic, epicurean) solutions helpful either, because I didn't want to live a "good life," I wanted existence to be meaningful in a higher sense. I remember ripping through babby's first existentialism stuff like Sartre and Camus and trying to understand how their quietism was anything but a non-answer. Often they made it worse. Sartre's book Nausea triggered what in hindsight was probably a mild psychotic episode because he diagnosed the problem more starkly and vividly than I had myself, but then his solutions were all pointless to me. His subsequent Marxist humanism made no sense to me either, because while I was compassionate and humanistic, the problem was how to justify these things as anything other than whims. I also emailed Daniel Dennett asking how moral altruism is logically and philosophically justifiable prescriptively, as opposed to just externalistically and sociologically describable as an evolved tendency, and I think his reply was just "well we evolved to be altruistic so most people will be altruistic."

I'm not really sure how I got out of it in the short term. At certain points the existential crisis thing got so bad that I lost of weight, because I couldn't eat. In hindsight, I was either close to crazy for a lot of this period or I was in a state of permanent and severe anxiety, basically a 24/7 panic attack for several months. Aside from being despondent at a conscious intellectual level, the sheer pain of the anxiety was the main thing that made me consider suicide half the time. For me it was like being "stuck," permanently and inescapably, in this really palpable feeling of an icy claw gripping the inside of my chest. Even today I still want to describe severe anxiety like that as a "fuzzy, gray" or "static-like, white noise" feeling in my heart, though I've never had someone really see what I mean by this. That plus the sense of complete certainty that it was a totally inescapable situation, that I would be stuck feeling like that forever, unable to taste or enjoy food, unable to enjoy anything, unless I actually resolved the problem at an intellectual level, is what made me want to die. And people only ever recommended solutions at the bodily level, like if I just loosened up and came back down to earth I would be fine, which made it a lot worse because I felt even more alone, like nobody could even understand.

I just wasn't interested in a meaningless life of self-satisfaction, being compassionate to others or even championing political causes simply because "it's the path of least resistance" my non-psychopath brain has evolved to take, or devoting myself to science because "I've evolved to find it interesting and it's a hobby."

Again, I'm not sure how I got through that in the short term. The really severe anxiety came and went in waves, so I could numbly get through life at least some of the time. But in the long term, the solution was just to weather the storm and keep reading and thinking. The fundamental realisation that allowed me to escape the trap I was in was a holistic thing that happened over a long period unconsciously and then all at once consciously, if that makes sense. It was essentially the realisation of how little we actually know, how all of these things are open questions. It helped that I realised how immature the usual Reddit atheist was, and that 99.9999% of the hardcore materialism and scientism you read is coming from someone who is simply repeating it, not actually processing it at a level of understanding where he could be said to agree or disagree with it. If you nurture your doubts about things, instead of letting them be smothered by the arrogant certainty that many of these people radiate, you will keep those doubts alive and they will link up with better-articulated versions in the writings of more mature thinkers.

I remember I had strong doubts about how stupid the radical empiricist and naive constructivist view of knowledge seemed, and I also had doubts about the strong reductivist view of consciousness as an epiphenomenon of matter. Then one day I read Plato's dialogue Phaedo, and found myself agreeing with Socrates' rebuke of both these positions (by arguing for universals necessarily preceding particulars, and arguing against the "soul as the harmony of the lyre" metaphor, respectively). And I realised, not just that I'm in good company if Plato and Socrates agree with me, but that I'm actively engaging in philosophical dialogue here, I'm invested in the argument now in exactly the same way I would be invested if I were really there in the room having the conversation with them, this is a "live" issue, and it's by no means a foregone conclusion that the materialistic, reductive stance is the "default" one or the one necessarily favoured by some Reddit simplification of Ockham's razor. I'm not sure if this will make any sense, but it was many things like this, many encounters where I realised it was "permitted" to have an open mind and actively inquire rather than default to any given stance, and then when I DID inquire, I found that I was standing alongside interesting people who simply weren't talked about by the Reddit scientism crowd. For example, even at 17 or 18 I remember I thought, "Isn't this 'Platonic recurrence' thing a bit like that Kant guy I read about?" This is just one example, but this sort of thing was happening in a dozen subtle ways all the time, so I was always linking more things up, which led me to push further, which led me to realise how much is really out there and how much "bigger" these questions were than I had previously been "allowed" to think by self-certain pop-philosophical Dennett types.

It also helped when I realised that people like Dawkins and Dennett were promoting a seedy online cult for Internet atheists (which they called "Brights" I think, incredibly douchey) that solicits donations, and at one point allowed you to vie for the (paid) honour of having dinner with Dennett or some shit like that. At this point I had already lost interest in this pop philosophy shit, but it did add fuel to the fire when I realised that some of their predatoriness comes from the fact that they're a "brand" and always trying to turn a profit. It prefigured my reflexive dislike for people like Lawrence Krauss, Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson.

I don't think these people are necessarily evil, but I think they're basically parochial middlebrows who have never sensed the problems inherent in their worldview (possibly because they spend more time proselytizing it than thinking about it), and so they don't sense that their worldview is very parochial. Tyson is effusively happy because he can repeat the intellectual equivalent of a 4-minute long "I fucking love science!!" Youtube video for teenagers over and over again without ever desiring to go beyond it. If you go do beyond it, you're not only left out of his effusiveness, he assumes you just haven't truly embraced the joy of basing your life on a pop philosophy Youtube video.

As you get more and more into philosophy you will begin to see not just THAT this scientism worldview is parochial, but exactly how it is parochial. Tyson's archetype has existed since the Greeks, existed in the proto-Buddhist/proto-Upanishadic era of India, and probably existed in contemporary Eastern Zhou China too, and he has ever since. They are shallow sophistic popularisers who gather a following by targeting average people who have just begin to think about philosophy but who can still be led by a powerful and especially a confident personality. In the Phaedo, it's no coincidence that Simmias and Cebes are "troubled" by the "very common argument" that the soul is like the mere harmony of the lyre, and Plato even interrupts the action to have Echecrates tell Phaedo (who is telling the story) that he TOO has been troubled by this commonplace. And it's exactly that, a commonplace, repeated by irresponsible sophists looking for an audience in Greece just as it was repeated by the kinds of shallow dead-end thinkers that the Buddha rebuked (the "six heretics"). These fundamental positions of reductivist materialism and epiphenomenalism were all elaborated in their logical content far before any Julien Offray de La Mettrie, Ernst Haeckel, Emil du Bois-Reymond, or Bertrand Russell came along to reduce the science of their day (whether corpuscular physics, matter-energy physics, Darwinism, or quantum physics) to a shallow, kitschy materialist worldview, and depress another generation with it. The difference between then and today is that at least a Haeckel or du Bois-Reymond could be an interesting thinker despite their reductivism, whereas today we get this:
blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/

It's not really fair to give my own position since I can't justify it in a fucking Yea Forums post, but nowadays I am essentially "religious" by certain standards, as I am some kind of Platonist and/or emanationist combined with a transcendental phenomenologist, and I believe that we can't discount esoteric or mystical dimensions of experience, because the facts of experience are precisely what are to be accounted for in natural philosophy, that is, in science.

It's trivial to prove that modern scientism is parochial and narrow-minded, whether through epistemology (which invariably shows that scientistic types are simply reifying metaphysical schemes like materialism while also claiming to be non-metaphysical; cf. the Krauss link above as a perfect example of this), or through history (which invariably shows just how contingent and narrow these reified materialist discourses are; like I said, they also get shallower and shallower over time). Again I can't justify this in a paragraph in a Yea Forums post, but fundamentally speaking, questions like those raised about the status of universals or the relationship of "soul" (mind) to matter in Plato still quite literally stand open and unresolved.

The more you learn about the history of philosophy the more you will see it as an intergenerational dialogue that has only slowly and painfully extricated itself from the temptation to make knee-jerk half-solutions, with each generation becoming slightly more self-aware and epistemologically liberated than the last. It's arguable that the trajectory of philosophy especially since Kant's critical turn, through Hegel and on to modern self-critical epistemology (in all its forms) has left us at a completely unique threshold, at which we can now inherit the whole philosophical and scientific legacy of the human race WITHOUT being tempted into such knee-jerk formulations, like preceding generations were, but begin again at the beginning with full self-awareness this time. There cannot be another Haeckel unless he is simply naive and underread. It's consequently not a mistake that most contemporary philosophy points implicitly to a return to the origins of philosophy in the Axial Age of Socrates and the pre-Socratics, the "hundred schools" of Eastern Zhou, or the late Vedic period, with their radical openness to "that form of wisdom called the inquiry into nature" (ταύτης τῆς σοφίας ἣν δὴ kαλοῦσι περὶ φύσεως ἱστορίαν, from Phaedo again).

Also, the more you read the more you will notice people are generally perverting and simplifying even the real philosophers for pop-philosophical aims. I hate to break this to anyone who is a fan, but nobody gives a fuck about Stirner, and readings of Nietzsche that reduce him to a mere therapeutic or existentialist thinker are sophomoric. Most philosophy churned out these days by academics is just towing the secular post-bourgeois party line of "how to live well after the death of meaning." But anyone who goes beyond these bourgeois commonplaces (and the essence of the bourgeois is that it is commonplace) is basically standing at the threshold of a new Axial Age, like I said. So this is a time for excitement. We're at the beginning of real, self-conscious science, not at the end of it.

Why did you post your long winded diary instead of just saying scientism isn’t all there is to it.

What's with the atheist resurgence lately? Has another generation of retarded americans discovered pseud authors that make them believe they're better than their peers? Fucking teens baka

because it's literally pseud-bs; free will is real, denett is a laughing stock and, altho I dont deny evolution per se, the neodarwinis consensus is crumbling by the hour. Uncuck urself from 20th century materialist reductionism, it is literally "bad faith" in [current year], I'd go so far to say that this mechanistic materialism is immensly irrational with the state of the arts scientific knowledge. Now, that doesn't say anything yet about the existence of any personal God (altho I am Christian), let alone the validity of any religion, but still. This crude worldview of Dawkins/Denett is untenable.

i unironically enjoyed this post. i can relate to your initial state of confusion, disillusionment with "the good life", and not wanting to live if there is no purpose

user it’s the exact opposite. It’s idleness that allows atheism to creep in. It’s the safe west that is atheistic not the 3rd world

If Dawkins can turn you away from God you've got bigger problems

>New Atheism ironically seems more and more like war on terror substraussian neocon grifters
But the New Atheists ended up being the biggest neocons of all
>Yes but having a a decent grasp of evolution, denying free will, demystifying soul
I'm a

I didn't actually die while typing that out, I was saying the Bible doesn't support free will. There are passages in it where God purposely hardens the heart of the sinner and only reveals religion in part.

A lot of reddit has come to this website, and boards like this one, /his/ and Yea Forums are pretty heavily hit. You used to spend all day saying nigger on Yea Forums and now you have people crying over that comedian who said chink in a joke.This coincided with the atheist resurgence here and on /his/.

The idea of philosophy making constant progress is nonsense imo. I agree with Joyce that there hasn't been a single great philosopher since the 1600s.

Nietzsche, Crocce, Marx, Spencer, Carlyle Weininger, Freud, Peirece, Bergson, etc have only cultivated the garden. Even Kant hasn't done more than that.

I think more than anything, we're entering an age of nonsense. Every nation is equally intelligent and accomplished, its possible to know anything about 11 dimensional space, what if art were actually a commentary on art etc. The great wonders of science having done less than human health than probably a few generations of good eating and selection for health could have done. People are going to look back at this age and have a hard laugh.

With Nietzsche, Stirner, and (I take it you mean) Sade: absolutely.
In this respect, I'm a Klossowskian.

I used to be an atheist for many years. I studied at a Catholic school and have a multi-family family. Out of sheer curiosity I started studying Hinduism. The idea concept for why the world exists really clicked with me. Bhakti really clicked for me. I wanted to love God because I wanted to. Not out of fear of hell. Not because I felt I would be saved. But for it's on sake, like one sings for it's own sake.

Attached: 52jrbrlka5i31.jpg (1080x1264, 295K)

I think he's a brilliant comedian, so I think he's funny and should be laughed along

>feeds off pain
Eh, that sounds barely plausible. I think he doesn't need to feed at all. If God's around, he must be EXCEEDINGLY bored enough to create us. I'd do the same, but I obviously can't. You either become very sympathetic or you become apathetic to all you see the "underbelly". He seems to be both, but from our standpoint, grey looks closer to black so whatever.

>neodarwinis consensus is crumbling by the hour
expand on this, because from my perspective you sound like an idiot.

>The idea of philosophy making constant progress is nonsense imo.
You can say there is progress in the sense that each philosopher is aware of the major philosophers before him and of their main flaws and can put forward propositions to solve those flaws, and that over time awareness about the nature of philosophical problems and why they're hard to answer accumulates.
It's progress in a very narrow sense but it's reasonable progress.

>Nietzsche, Crocce, Marx, Spencer, Carlyle Weininger, Freud, Peirece, Bergson, etc have only cultivated the garden.
Ultimately a very vague statement (as it is in Joyce's original quote). I might agree with you (or not), but who is according to you the last philosopher who didn't merely tend to the garden, and what did he do that constituted going beyong tending to the garden?

He’s right in the sense that evolution by natural selection and random genetic mutation alone is untenable (mathematically impossible, for example). It doesn’t mean evolution isn’t real though. We just haven’t figured out how it happens.

>is untenable (mathematically impossible, for example).
?

>(mathematically impossible, for example)
Are you one of those "what's the probability of an eye appearing" faggots? Because those have no idea what they're talking about.

>You can say there is progress in the sense that each philosopher is aware of the major philosophers before him and of their main flaws and can put forward propositions t
But this isn't true. Nietzsche didn't understand a great deal of Kant. Kant was not well read as to the universals. He was almost wholly ignorant of some of the most important pieces of progress made by the scholastic in that area. And so on. And I don't think he had ever read Bishop Butler.

Philosophy over the past 300 years has consisted in large part of clever thinkers tackling great problems without actually having read everything on the subject, and therefore building massive edifices on pure sand, Kant, Weininger, etc. The other half are just playing nominal games until the whole discussion falls face first into fatuity, eg Nietzsche with his simplified rehashing of ancient skepticism and a bit of vulgar power lust stapled on at the end, Bentham's principle of utility, Peirce's futile definition games, Bergson's inconclusive mental theories

>but who is according to you the last philosopher who didn't merely tend to the garden,
My idea would be someone like Descartes and what he did is self-evident. Think about Kant the most influential of the past 300 years. Whom has he influenced? Not anyone whose books we'll be reading in a century or two. Most of his great reach will be found to have affected persons less durable than certain minor medieval thinkers. And the case is worse with Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Weininger, etc

That's the beauty of evolution. Without any knowledge of the specifics, or even a good hypothetical outlook, we can say shit like "bro millions of years, it was selected for that, it happened out of mutation and was selected

Nowhere in nature are there the beginnings of anything on the level of an eyeball to be found Nowhere is such mutation taking place.

I'm one of those "what are the odds of an eye appearing under current models of how evolution works" faggots. I don't deny, needless to say, that the eye did in fact appear somehow and at some point
enjoy:
youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740&t=147s

>youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740&t=147s
I listened to the first bit and im intrigued but I can't stand this format, does this guy have a paper or book or something where I can read him about this?

He does have some books, I haven't read them yet though. I think one is called "The Deniable Darwin" off the top of my head or something like that. It's a collection of essays iirc

can't find that one online anywhere unfortunately. whatever i will listen to the video, thanks anyway

kek the part about the insults. roasting dennett hard as fuck

...

>Nowhere in nature are there the beginnings of anything on the level of an eyeball
What does that mean "the level of an eyeball"? It's not the result of a single mutation, but thousands of them accumulating over time. We have traces of mutation leading to the apparition of photo-receptors (a first prerequisite for the eye) in old species of medusa. That we haven't a step-by-step history of the apparition of the eye doesn't mean it's incompatible with evolution.

Also my comment was specifically about claims about the probability of an eye appearing. Such a claim is absolutely devoid of meaning unless you at least give some
skeleton of framework for computing that probability. "The probability of X happening" in general doesn't mean anything.

>Nowhere in nature are there the beginnings of anything on the level of an eyeball
there are animals with very primitive light sensing cells which are kind of the beginning of an eyeball

Not really

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_eye_in_invertebrates
>Some jellyfish, sea stars, flatworms, and ribbonworms [3] bear the simplest eyes, pigment spot ocelli, which have pigment distributed randomly and which have no additional structures such as a cornea and lens.

Its quite easy to still believe in God because new atheists are completely cringe. They are just regurgitating progressive ideology.

The only effective form of atheism is total nihilism. Which is at least honest and coherent. I wonder what real devoted Christians think about that. Even if we grant Gods existence, he created a universe that is unfathomably huge and made up of a mostly black void with some dead chunks of matter floating around in it. If God exists it seems like we can't begin to know him at all.

Nihilism is only coherent if materialism is true.

>He's It's source and the reason the world makes sense
But the world doesn't make any sense

The world makes at least some sense, but not total sense.

coherence is nothing to do with if the viewpoint or not, just that it doesn't contradict itself. nu atheists are constantly doing that when they borrow theistic ideas and try to throw away the theological underpinnings of them at the same time.

>But the world doesn't make any sense
>im dumb

This but Spinoza.

I don't understand the reasoning behind choosing the Christian God or more specifically an Orthodox one vs the Muslim God who claims the same even Brahman. It really seems like personal preference to not admit that God=Allah=Brahman and Spinoza was right.

*if the viewpoint is true or not

I’m saying they’re not really eyes

>How do you know what God is like?
From nature, like how plants grow in the sun and everything evolved just so. Evolution is proof of this absolute principle.

I never implied the fact we don’t know how the eyeball came to be means it couldn’t have happened. I said “durr just assume it, millions of years bro” is a piss weak response

Well fuck even if I concede that we haven't found anything that resembles the beginnings or ocular evolution at least we've established that there's a creature out there with a primitive form of the human brain

I get it, but people are looking for capital ontological Sense, not the old story about "but we gotta keep going anyway", and the we ask "towards what?" I think the majority of people is expecting the next grand "significant", sorta like a second coming, that encompasses or ties science ,metaphysics, tech and politics at the current level, but also being in this state of "awaiting" is preciselly one of the problems, we can see an example at the rise populism and rampant consumism, the regression to radical mysticism and so on, people just want to justify the cartesian "i am" but let the "i think" to the other

> I said “durr just assume it, millions of years bro” is a piss weak response
And that was not my initial point. My initial point is that "hurr evolution mathematically impossible because eyes" is a retarded-ass argument. When mathematicians want to argue something is impossible they actually prove it.

Who cares what your original point was. Evolution permits of so much speculation that its all too easy explanations as to complex development always seem flabby. Of course they are not impossible. But they convince only the mentally feeble.

>Who cares what your original point was
>I was just pretending to be arguing with you
Nice variation on the "I was just pretending to be retarded" theme.

>Evolution permits of so much speculation that its all too easy explanations as to complex development always seem flabby.
Evolution works well in small-scale well-controlled cases. Do you have any alternative theory that works similarly well in a similar number of cases while avoding the pitfalls you mention?

>Of course they are not impossible. But they convince only the mentally feeble.
Ad hominem is a tired way of arguing.

>actually saying adhominem
Lmao

>pic related

is a pretty big red pill on """science"""

Attached: ideas.jpg (1000x800, 132K)

First of all you can read someone work and not agree with/not find them convincing. That said if say someone who was hypothetically agnostic read all those works yet still had a strong belief in an objective morality I can see where there would be a pathway to theism afterwards.

I went on an Atheist phase when I was a late teenager, however exposure to stands of Monism organically developped my belief in the Absolute, Omnipotent, All (One). Once you accept that reality itself is reality itself then it is not a question of whether God exists, it's a question of what's It's nature.

>haha yeah dude you shouldn't hate god even when he fucking sucks be caused if you you go to hell lmao, that why you should love him, funny thing is that is you love him just for the sake of the consequences you're going to hell anyways because your love is falso sooo yeah get fucked

I really enjoyed this post, thank you.

I kind of agree. However I found the same conclusion through more christian texts. Nothing against Hinduism, but I find it a bit to mystic for my plain liking. I believe loving God because the alternative is suffering is a bit vain in and of itself. If this is what gets you ,then you are not loving God out of genuinity, but out of triteness.

This guy gets it. Just enjoy the ride while you can, and be light hearted about it.

I really have to agree with you on this. A lot of the thinkers did not have the basis that really would have made them produce something truly additive instead of transformative. Its a shame that the scholastics were largely forgotten about by the time of Kant, since I think his reasoning is grand, but he kinda makes his own system.

Do you know any good resources on Scholasticism? I was planing on buying copleston, but It doesnt seem like he put too much note on scholasticism.

All of them are fools, if you examine them closely, a lot of them turn out to be actors, especially the science popularizers like bill nye and neil tyson.

Romans 1:22 kjv
>Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

1 Corinthians 2:14 kjv
>But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Don't be fooled by these science goobers into thinking that God doesn't exist anons. I was fooled for a decade after watching a lot of Hitchens and Dawkins, and nothing good came out of it in my personal experience.

Attached: tumblr_p0nxvjNDhl1slzegfo1_1280.jpg (891x960, 158K)

I was an atheist and I would say I'm an agnostic now, I believe there is something greater than us.
I'm not religious yet though, I'm interested in Christianity and Buddhism.

Holy shit what a retarded post

I was a cringy gaythings in my late teens and early twenties. Read lots of New Atheist shit. Thank God those cringe days are over and I'm a Christian now.

>what are the odds of an eye appearing under current models of how evolution works
It's a light sensor that gradually got more complex. Richard Dawkins actually made a video explaining it if you're too stupid to read the first chapter of a textbook ironically enough.

Attached: 1568308317931.jpg (1280x720, 154K)

very kafkaesque situation desu