I'm an atheist. Debate me.

[pariah]

Any worthy challengers?

 

[Foidkiller]

I agree with you on everything.

 

[Asgard]

I'm tired, hug me.

 

[Orka]

same here, not experienced in debating though so I'd want to watch someone debate you

 

[Xuelian Baijie]

you are my anti god

 

[Sovereign]

View attachment 10465
Any worthy challengers?

I will start with a question, how did you come to the conclusion that there is no deity or higher power of the universe in which we reside?

 

[pariah]

OP was a shitpost and I'm not strictly an atheist but I'll humor you just for fun.

I will start with a question, how did you come to the conclusion that there is no deity or higher power of the universe in which we reside?

I can't answer your question before we lay down some definitions first. What do you mean by a deity or a higher power? Is it conscious or unconscious? If the latter, then that is no different than the materialist position in which everything can be reduced to unthinking matter, perhaps a unified force of nature or a quantum field or whatever else. If however you posit that it's akin to a person, then show me your proof. As far as we know, mind seems to be a property of complex biological organisms, and I don't suppose that your deity is material, let alone organic. Thus the burden of proof is on you.

 

[OgreLTN]

Atheist or agnostic? Can't get the two mixed up

 

[Foidkiller]

Atheist or agnostic? Can't get the two mixed up

I'm against agnosticism more than anything else.

 

[OgreLTN]

I'm against agnosticism more than anything else.

care to elaborate?

 

[pariah]

care to elaborate?

Maybe he thinks it's cowardly. Being an agnostic isn't really a position, but a lack of one.

 

[OgreLTN]

Maybe he thinks it's cowardly. Being an agnostic isn't really a position, but a lack of one.

Isn't that the least cowardly and arrogant you can be?

 

[Foidkiller]

care to elaborate?

I don't know there's not much to say, teenagers discover the basic differences between belief and knowing and that doing science entails questioning everything and then they say "I don't know whether God is real or not" but the question was whether they believe in it or not so it's odd and out of place. Kind of like nihilism the word is misused, it's not meant to be an actual stance, you're necessarily nihilistic on some things, for example me personally I am nihilistic on colleges, I consider them a scam. You could say you are agnostic on the position of whether Lewis Carroll was a pedophile etc., or anything that you don't truly know the answer to, but that's silly.

 

[Foidkiller]

Isn't that the least cowardly and arrogant you can be?

Actually it's quite cowardly not being able to just admit that you don't believe in God, out of simply being weak-minded enough to fall for the pressure that atheism is for people who are pseudo-intellectuals or something. When it's by all means the default position.

 

[OgreLTN]

@pariah How do you reconcile the fact that consciousness is not necessary for life to be? Think of the philosophical zombie thing? Also, the fact that how can consciousness arise from non-consciousness? Can atoms that aren't consciouses form into a whole that is?

 

[Foidkiller]

@pariah How do you reconcile the fact that consciousness is not necessary for life to be? Think of the philosophical zombie thing? Also, the fact that how can consciousness arise from non-consciousness? Can atoms that aren't consciouses form into a whole that is?

Atheism is different from materialism, I'm not a materialist at all I believe everything is rooted in consciousness. You could say, the exact "opposite".

 

[OgreLTN]

Atheism is different from materialism, I'm not a materialist at all I believe everything is rooted in consciousness. You could say the exact "opposite".

God can be the universe itself, as proposed by Spinoza. And everything that happens is determined by it, and the universe itself wills it.

 

[Foidkiller]

God can be the universe itself, as proposed by Spinoza.

Spinoza is playing word games to be honest. He's pretty life-denying as well.

And everything that happens is determined by it, and the universe itself wills it.

I don't know if this is the determinism thing, but incompatibilism is obviously and indubitably true. Determinism still applies no matter what religion you believe in, whether you are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jew, Atheist...

 

[VioletBlast]

 

[OgreLTN]

Spinoza is playing word games to be honest. He's pretty life-denying as well.

I don't know if this is the determinism thing, but incompatibilism is obviously and indubitably true. Determinism still applies no matter what religion you believe in, whether you are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jew, Atheist...

Just posing questions, as I'm not a believer, and I'm a coward agnostic. Although the Abrahamic religions have never satisfied my questions. I just see it as pointless to have us be consciouses if not for some reason. Why would we be subjected to a forced existence? Seems too elaborate. What evolutive pressures drove the development of a consciouses mind? Is it a mere byproduct of higher brain function? Would other animals, given the right circumstances also develop it? All seemingly too complex to be an after-thought.

 

[pariah]

@pariah How do you reconcile the fact that consciousness is not necessary for life to be? Think of the philosophical zombie thing? Also, the fact that how can consciousness arise from non-consciousness? Can atoms that aren't consciouses form into a whole that is?

Well, that is difficult to answer since I'm an idealist, and I feel dirty pretending to be a materialist or physicalist, lmao.

I'll play along. How consciousness arises from non-consciousness is a mystery, but maybe one day science will solve it. Yet we do know that consciousness is emergent from matter because if I hit you on the head then you will become unconscious. It follows then that you can only have consciousness by organizing matter or atoms in a certain way, for otherwise everything would be conscious.

 

[OgreLTN]

Well, that is difficult to answer since I'm an idealist, and I feel dirty pretending to be a materialist or physicalist, lmao.

I'll play along. How consciousness arises from non-consciousness is a mystery, but maybe one day science will solve it. Yet we do know that consciousness is emergent from matter because if I hit you on the head then you will become unconscious. It follows then that you can only have consciousness by organizing matter or atoms in a certain way, for otherwise everything would be conscious.

Can you explain your position? Not familiar with what exactly idealism is.

 

[pariah]

Can you explain your position? Not familiar with what exactly idealism is.

Really? Your question gave me the impression that you're an idealist as well. Perhaps you are, but you don't know it.

Idealism is the position that mind is fundamental, and everything else is contingent upon it. What we call matter is nothing more than sensory data that wouldn't exist without a mind to perceive them. It is basically the exact opposite of what the materialist position is.

 

[OgreLTN]

Really? Your question gave me the impression that you're an idealist as well. Perhaps you are, but you don't know it.

Idealism is the position that mind is fundamental, and everything else is contingent upon it. What we call matter is nothing more than sensory data that wouldn't exist without a mind to perceive them. It is basically the exact opposite of what the materialist position is.

At a point I feel we are just discussing semantics really. Matter doesn't exist if no one's there to see it? The thing is, I don't think that statement means nothing, since nobody can really question it. It's devoid of any content. So if someone stops observing a distant planet on Andromeda, it doesn't exist?

 

[pariah]

At a point I feel we are just discussing semantics really. Matter doesn't exist if no one's there to see it? The thing is, I don't think that statement means nothing, since nobody can really question it. It's devoid of any content. So if someone stops observing a distant planet on Andromeda, it doesn't exist?

There are different variations of idealism. Berkely's idealism does indeed make the claim that nothing can exist without a mind to perceive it. But he was a Christian, and to him God was the supreme mind, and that is how things remained consistent and in place.

As for me, I believe that the universe itself, taken as a whole, is mental. Call it a God or whatever you want to call it. However, it would not cease to exist if I stop perceiving it. It exists, because it itself is also a mind. What I see, hear and feel when I interact with the world is only a representation of that mind, an image, but not the thing-in-itself.

By the way, if you feel that we're only arguing semantics here, then that's because most of philosophy amounts to that.