Discussion Atheism is dead

[UglyBastard]

Atheism has been academically and philosophically dead for CENTURIES. It is not a serious position, it is just something personal. Only your twitter friends don't know this, because they all don't understand anything about philosophy/philosophy of science.

Two centuries ago, Kant refuted Hume, who had awakened him from his "dogmatic slumber", criticizing reason and demonstrating the impossibility of empiricism based on sensory experience.

Since then, philosophy has been trying to demonstrate the possibility of secure knowledge through reason (constructivist empiricism, foundationalism, instrumentalism...), but all these projects have failed monumentally, leaving everything in the hands of cognitivism, psychologism and behaviorism (like Quine).

Quine put the final nails in the coffin of his cringe and gay vision in "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" AND THERE IS NO WAY OUT OF THIS! Either you go for cognitivist theories, or for religion. Every time you see your average atheist (((influencer))) talking about logic and reason to defend atheism, know that he doesn't even know the status quaestionis of what he wants to debate. He's a guesser! Even worse is when the guy wants to make moral judgments, without justifying the transition from descriptive to normative findings, according to Hume's Law. In Christian theological arguments, God is the epistemic precondition to answer questions about logic and meta-ethics, YOUR ATHEISM DOESN'T HAVE THIS. It's a position based, precisely, on epistemic suicide.

Quine made the following distinction between analytic and synthetic truths:

• Analytic: true only by meaning (e.g.: "all bachelors are unmarried");
• Synthetic: true because of experience (e.g.: "the grass is green").

He then argues that such a distinction does not hold, because the definition of "analytic" depends on circular concepts such as "meaning" or "synonyms", which in turn have no clear empirical basis or pure logic!

This results in semantic reductionism, that is, the idea that every meaningful statement can be reduced to a basic sensory experience. He showed that there is no way to translate complex scientific sentences directly into sensory data! The meaning of any statement depends on an entire body of knowledge, and this knowledge, no matter how large, cannot be proven because there is no way to access it externally to perform empirical verification. In other words, GO FUCK YOURSELF WITH ALL YOUR "muh- then prove God exists " ARGUMENTS! The problem predates that, you fucking nigger.

 

[UglyBastard]

tl;dr atheism cannot justify logic or reason - before talking about God, the atheist needs to demonstrate that logic is logical and reason is rational

Good luck trying. Entire schools have already discussed this crap through debates about the mind.

Descartes: mind and matter coexist
Locke: matter exists and causes ideas
Berkeley: There are only ideas and minds (without matter)
Hume: radical skeptic, doubts even the mental substance
Kant: claimed that the world as we know it depends on the mind, but there is a noumenon (reality itself) that we cannot access directly

All of the above, except Hume who was agnostic, had God as the axiom to justify their theories.

Remove God, and your situation gets even worse.

Atheism is literally the MANURE of philosophy. Apart from the ancient Charvaka school in India, there has been no "atheist school of knowledge" at any time or place in the world. Neither the Epicureans were atheists, nor is the Theravada school of Buddhism atheist, nor is the Christian nominalist school atheist (although Stuart Mill was an atheist).

Spoiler

the tl;dr ended up not being a tl;dr…

 

[Disorder]

Gay + dnr

 

[UglyBastard]

Gay + dnr

This is not a discussion for you, ricefaggot.
Your people people don't have enough IQ for this debate.
You belong to the rice fields.

 

[Disorder]

This is not a discussion for you, ricefaggot.
Your people people don't have enough IQ for this debate.
You belong to the rice fields.

View attachment 194164

Good one you fat ugly bastard. Your ancestors were Portuguese slaves and you look like R9 but norwooding, unlucky dickhead.

 

[Disorder]

Also youre a shameless pedophile, please kys

 

[Neet194012940]

god is an absurd super stit ion

 

[c-barreda]

Jesus is cumming

 

[Eren]

He showed that there is no way to translate complex scientific sentences directly into sensory data! The meaning of any statement depends on an entire body of knowledge, and this knowledge, no matter how large, cannot be proven because there is no way to access it externally to perform empirical verification.

This is literally the purpose of chemistry and cellular bio.

Quine made the following distinction between analytic and synthetic truths:

• Analytic: true only by meaning (e.g.: "all bachelors are unmarried");
• Synthetic: true because of experience (e.g.: "the grass is green").

He then argues that such a distinction does not hold, because the definition of "analytic" depends on circular concepts such as "meaning" or "synonyms", which in turn have no clear empirical basis or pure logic!

This is semantics and and an issue of definitions. I encourage you to look into prepositional logic arguments for and against god.

 

[The Doctor]

Cringe

 

[UglyBastard]

Cringe

Retard

 

[MelaninQueen]