Why do people so fervently advocate atheism? What's the point of atheism?

Why do people so fervently advocate atheism? What's the point of atheism? If atheism is "true" or one accepts it as such, then it doesn't really matter if it's true. Is it because the truth valuable? If so, why? Is it because religion is "harmful"? If so, how can one determine what is harmful or that harm ought be avoided? If atheism is true, there is no real purpose to believing in it, or convincing others of it.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP, are you really arguing truth isn't valuable?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is it? Is it valuable? Or is it even possible? If an atheist were to encounter some uncomfortable "truth", or at least what he considers to be the truth, is there any reason for him not to change to some life-affirming interpretation, that might not exactly be "true"?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >"truth"
        >"true"
        Stop doing that. True and truth are both real concepts.
        I know you disagree with the conclusion, but when posing it as a question, you have to allow it to be understood as real for the sake of hypothesis.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Truth is a real concept, but is it anything more than a mere concept? And as a concept is it even sensical?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >tacitly admits religion is just a cope for people to deal with uncomfortable truths

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, the question is that if an atheist were to experience any negative emotions as a result of a belief of his, why shouldn't he just change to some belief that suits him better for that moment. This is what most atheists do in practice actually, rendering the whole idea a rather funny cul-de-sac

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why shouldn't he just change to some belief that suits him better for that moment.
            For the same reason a theist doesn't just shop around and join the religion with the easiest morals and easiest heaven. You seem to forget atheist is as broad as "theist" is. Because the truth is what's true. If I already know such an uncomfortable truth no amount of lying to myself will make that go away. I'd know I'm fooling myself.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No human being is incapable of delusion, it's a universal human talent.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody said anyone is incapable of delusion. But you said if an atheist found out an uncomfortable truth. Well he knows it now, right? So there's no benefit to lying. You already know it. What benefit does pretending otherwise serve? None. Because say I catch my wife cheating and I'd really like to think they didn't. Do you think it's better to just pretend otherwise rather than face an uncomfortable reality? No. And you'd always know that truth anyway. No matter how hard you tried to ignore it, you already knew what the uncomfortable truth was. Once the cat's out of the bag there's no benefit to larping otherwise.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You underestimate the human mind. One can never be sure that there aren't uncomfortable truths he is ignoring. Or one would make the claim that he accepts ALL uncomfortable truths that he could know of. Besides, this idea of an atheist with some sort of unforgettable, insoluble knowledge is rather dubious, and wouldn't apply at all to some other fellow who is absolutely capable of deluding himself. Does one claim that there are no atheists who delude themselves? And one must consider all manner of food, entertainment and drugs that people use to distract them, not just intellectual delusions.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >One can never be sure that there aren't uncomfortable truths he is ignoring.
            Yeah, you can. You look in your head. Do you not know your own mind? I've had to face uncomfortable truths before. You deal with like a man. Who the frick would have a psychotic break and go "nononono sky daddy real pls sky daddy i need it cuz im scared". That's fricking pathetic. And given I'm an atheist I can answer for what at least one atheist would do when facing uncomfortable truths. Because I've literally done it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Did you ever harbour any comforting delusions? If you did, at that time you were as sure as you are now that you didn't.
            In any case, you merely say that you for whatever reason of incapability or presentiment you can't ignore supposed uncomfortable truths, but that does nothing to explain as to why this objectively should never be done

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Did you ever harbour any comforting delusions?
            Not really religiously, but of course I did. I used to be really into aliens, cryptids, tarot cards, I ching, stuff like that. But I never deluded myself with these. What happened was I thought they were really cool and wanted to believe them. So I never thought about any counterarguments and instantly accepted what any random scrap of alleged evidence would support it.

            But there comes a time when you self reflect and think "wait a minute, do I really believe all this the same way I do in biology, physics, etc? And it was no. It was me wanting really badly to have beliefs I thought seemed cool and added mystique and adventure and meaning to life. It can be scary losing that initially, but the truth provides its own. Everything I "lost" I gained back far more and what I believe now is based on solid, fundamental reasons and evidence. Not "look i really wanna believe and this gypsy said it works for her case closed". And I still enjoy those things to this day. Just in a different way than blind faith and desire.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Never.
            t. Atheist

            It requires a decent amount of effort for someone to force themselves to believe in something. Some people have the personality type to just dive into it but there are plenty who don't.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That doesn't explain why he SHOULDN'T but why he CAN'T. An important distinction.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't give a shit what he does. He can delude himself all he wants just like liberal atheists do. If he's comfortable living a lie he knows is a lie then I guess go ahead. But I don't see the point in that. The truth/reality to me, for its own sake, is something I want to have. How I feel about that truth is on me. But I would vastly prefer to know it on its own terms than delude myself with a beautiful lie.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The idea that we can even know of the truth is itself a "beautiful lie". The value of the truth is a fiction also.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well it's all that matters to me. At least on a big picture level. Even if you call caring about the truth a delusion then okay. I guess you can value whatever you want to. But I still prefer to know reality, as it is, not as I wish it were. It is beautiful and meaningful to me for its own sake.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheists don't care about converting people to atheism. Where do you see atheists arguing for deists and pantheists, or even buddhists to become atheists? Atheists are highly correlated with antitheism though.This is because atheists find that organized religions generally have dangerous dogma.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      this.

      Also most atheism activists aren't missionaries trying to convert people, they're people protesting for their religious liberties, to not have God injected into public schools or have religious laws implemented

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Their religious liberties? From whom do they get these liberties, these rights? And why should they be respected? You are making the Constitution your holy text.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >From whom do they get these liberties, these rights?
          We the people, homosexual.

          >You are making the Constitution your holy text.
          And you gays crying about an extended magazine ban infringing on your 2nd amendment rights aren't?

          Constitution or not, respecting the religious liberties of every group of people, religious or not, is just how civilized societies have decided to run themselves for the past 200-300 years. You can either get with the program, or go live with the Saudis. I hear they also have your concerns about these so-called """religious liberties""".

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            See how offended you are, as though I have blasphemed against your holy text. Who cares if some fellow 200 years ago invented some imaginary "rights" and then further invented that they came from "the people". Who are these people? Why do they have the authority to grant "rights"? We must also remember that these rights did not apply to the Africans whom they kept as slaves.
            Also, who cares if "civilised" societies have decided to do such and such a thing, up until recently all civilised nations kept slaves and put homosexuals to death, and besides, appealing to what is civilised is fallacious and an arbitrary value judgement. As well as that, I am neither religious, nor American.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I do not need to make a logical case for why the Grand Poobah does not have a right to put people to death for not believing that Christ does indeed have a hypostatic union of human and divine natures.

            The religious nut jobs who want that have to make a case for why we should.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You do not need to make a logical case for something? Dare I say, this is no more justifiable than a religious belief. People have a "right" for no reason?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're genuinely fricking moronic. No one here is trying to argue that we should let people kill each other over minor doctrinal squabbles. We're having a logical discussion about the reasons for atheists' belief in principles such as "rights".
            You're trying to make an appeal to burden of proof, but it falls apart quite easily. You're the one claiming it is wrong to kill people over difference in belief. That's a logically positive statement: the burden of proof lies on you. Why is it wrong to kill people over difference in belief?
            You're trying to make it seem like it's so obvious and that no one should need proof for that, but if it is so, prove it. Show to me logically why it is morally wrong. You fricking can't. Do you know why? Because there is no such thing as morality if your ideology is true. You can say, "oh civilized people don't do that", but why does it matter what people who call themselves civilized do or do not? You can say "oh that's just not how you run a functioning society" but what makes a society "functioning" and if you can come up with a good definition of that, what makes that inherently better than a society that isn't "functioning"?
            You say "oh if you think it's okay to kill people over difference in belief, then just go to Saudi Arabia, I'm sure you'll love it there, they do that all the time", but that only shows how badly your misunderstanding the argument. You and I are both in a agreement that killing people over difference in belief is wrong. That's not what we're arguing. What the argument is, is that if atheism is true, there is no logical reason for any of this. You can't claim that religion is bad, because "bad" doesn't mean anything. Rights don't mean anything. Morality doesn't mean anything. You have no reason to believe anyone has any rights, nor human life worth to be worth protecting, because "worth" is a manmade construct.
            Also, Constitution says rights come from God, not the ppl, not that I care abt the Constituti

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No one here is trying to argue that we should let people kill each other over minor doctrinal squabbles
            Except that's exactly what happened throughout history in Christian societies(and israelite, and Muslim).

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Where do these rights come from
          A couple Brits in the 1600s who were doing thought experiments about how primitive people came to live in society.
          >Why should they be respected
          Pragmatism, empathy, the non-aggression principle, aesthetics

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Explain precisely how the moral and ethical teachings of the enlightenment have any more validity or value than those of the Koran, Bible, Talmud etc.
            Why ought pragmatism, empathy, the NAP and aesthetics be followed?
            Pragmatism merely means to act in a manner that is in consideration of what practical and feasible, it says nothing of what aim we should act towards. One can go about exterminating israelites "pragmatically". And should we euthanasize those who have no apparent practical use? Empathy as a justification is idiotic. NAP is the same. Regarding aesthetics, one only needs visit Vatican city to see that they offer a strong case on that front.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The biblical texts are a heap of principles of varying quality. There's rules about circumsions, a rule about leaving your family if they dont believe, a rule about jihad. Then there are the principles that are broadly acceptable for most people. The enlightenment project was an imperfect attempt to find out what those were and formalize them. Its probably not possible to do this perfectly, values arent baked into the nature of the universe, but its better grounded than religious principles.

            The justifications are all valid. If you want people to be happy or maximize good or whatever your outlook is it is pragmatic to afopt the best principles for the job. If you derive your ethics from empathy, like its layed out in Hume, you come to a similar conclusion. Nozicks book on the subject gives a compelling derivation of a state from the NAP appealing only to self-preservation. There are plenty of secular derivations of ethics. But even that is unnecessary, "I just feel like that is right" is equally valid.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Empathy as a justification is very flawed. Why should it be followed? Why should it be taught and cultivated,in individuals and in society? We must remember that not all people share this supposedly universal emotion. In order to keep up this flimsy justification, what does society do to those who do not possess this vague quality of empathy? They arbitrarily decide that they are sick, mentally ill, a sociopath, a psychopath, for not hallucinating the suffering of others.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Congrats on discovering that all philosophies rely on axioms OP.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            How is an axiom any different from a religious belief? If one assumes that empathy or compassion is the teacher of values, or that human flourishing is desirable, then it is really no different from assuming the Bible is true. All such assumptions are equally valid/invalid, one cannot approach any set of assumptions and, with any initial assumptions, decide which is correct. We are faced with a criterionless decision that we nonetheless must make.
            I am reminded of the genius Kierkegaard and his book Either/Or.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            *without any initial assumptions

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            They aren't fundamentally. But not all axioms are equal.
            If I believe that empathy is a fundamental good, I am making a far smaller assumption than say a Young Earth Creationist who believes that the Bible is the word of God and must be read in its entirety as historical fact.

            Even empiricism relies on axioms, but they are very basic assumptions few people would ever question, like that we can learn things by measuring the results of an experiment in a controlled setting., and that the laws of physics don't change willy-nilly without us noticing Mandela effect-style.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            All axioms are equal. They must necessarily be judged equally. Otherwise one approaches axioms with axioms already in hand. No unfounded assumption is bigger or smaller than another, how can they be? Is there a justification for empathetic morality as an assumption that does not exist for creationism? They are both equally unjustifiable, there is no ultimate test that either can be put against. Your preference for one is merely a bias, that has arisen from your life experience.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >bias
            Your preference for one is informed by your empirical experiences. No atheist denies that. One is inflexible and has as its goal to appease a non-existent deity. The other is adaptable and has as its goal general human well-being.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            But the question remains, why oughtn't a person attempt to appease a non existent deity, and why ought they promote general human well being.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Its not about ought. Most people value others wellbeing, therefore they should adopt the position that brings forth what they value.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know already what most people value, or claim to value. Or what it is pleasant to believe they value, but I am questioning the basis of such values. Certainly, the fact that generally these values are held is no basis whatsoever

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So most people ITT have acknowledge that they are operating on ultimately arbitrary assumptions or values they have like valuing general human wellbeing.

            So what is the point continuing this line of questioning.
            Yes everyone is biased and makes some assumptions about the world.
            I don't see any value in dragging on this discussion any further with you OP.

            Are you just afraid of having any opinions or worldview?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >values held on no basis
            Didn't you just quote Nietzsche? There are no grounds for values and that doesn't entail that values are worthless. They are what motivates our actions. If the vast majority of people value general wellbeing than most people should be empathetic.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            "This irreverent belief that the great sages were decadent types, first occurred to me precisely in regard to that case concerning which both learned[Pg 10] and vulgar prejudice was most opposed to my view. I recognised Socrates and Plato as symptoms of decline, as instruments in the disintegration of Hellas, as pseudo-Greek, as anti-Greek (“The Birth of Tragedy,” 1872). That consensus sapientium, as I perceived ever more and more clearly, did not in the least prove that they were right in the matter on which they agreed. It proved rather that these sages themselves must have been alike in some physiological particular, in order to assume the same negative attitude towards life—in order to be bound to assume that attitude. After all, judgments and valuations of life, whether for or against, cannot be true: their only value lies in the fact that they are symptoms; they can be considered only as symptoms,—per se such judgments are nonsense. You must therefore endeavour by all means to reach out and try to grasp this astonishingly subtle axiom, that the value of life cannot be estimated. A living man cannot do so, because he is a contending party, or rather the very object in the dispute, and not a judge; nor can a dead man estimate it—for other reasons. For a philosopher to see a problem in the value of life, is almost an objection against him, a note of interrogation set against his wisdom—a lack of wisdom. What? Is it possible that all these great sages were not only decadents, but that they were not even wise? Let me however return to the problem of Socrates." - Nietzche, Twilight of the Idols

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok now go to the part where creating your own values is empowering and based. We make our own values, and its simply human to value the wellbeing of others.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >All axioms are equal.
            lol no they are not.

            Me assuming that you are a contrarian who just watched some philosophy 101 videos is not an equal assumption to me assuming that you are an 8 foot tall lizard-man who likes to crossdress in his mom's clothes when his wife is away at work in the coal mines. Yes they live in a multi-generational home, as all healthy societies should.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            How might axioms be judged then? Such that they might be differentiated from my claim that they are equal? This must be done without adopting an axiom, or with some vague appeal to good old common sense.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Everything when you drill it down is arbitrary on some level.

            But if you want to get results that align the most with our experience of reality, the best way is with the most simple axioms that assume as little as possible, and that they can be abandoned if they no longer align with reality.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Don't you see? You are approaching axioms with axioms already in hand, why should it be that one should assume axioms that are without too many assumptions? When deciding values, one can't help but decide based on his values...

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You are approaching axioms with axioms already in hand, why should it be that one should assume axioms that are without too many assumptions?
            I explained why in my last post. If your goal is to get to something that as closely aligns with reality as possible, those are the assumptions you make.

            If you're fine with solopsism or believing we're just brains in vats, there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is is the strange situation produced by atheism.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The line of reasoning I just used is how we got empiricism and from that science, which is undeniably useful the daily lives of everyone down to the computer you're shitposting on right now.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Empathy is the way virtually every child derive morals. You point out to your kid how their actions hurt someone else and they learn what is wrong. Why should it be followed? Because you are empathetic yourself.

            All secular ethics are derived from principles that dont have the type of grounding you are looking for. The same holds for theology though, if there is some objective moral code how can someone tell it is correct? If we have some moral intuition, why do we have to assume its tuned to a divine code rather than the necessary prerequisites for complex social behaviour?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Does the child learn morality from empathy, or from the influence of society and their parents. Despite these teachings, men act against others without even considering empathy. And some so called "mentally ill people" seem to lack it altogether. Who are we to say they are wrong? Empathy, morality is nothing but the herd instinct of the individual.

            "The trodden worm curls up. This testifies to its caution. It thus reduces its chances of being trodden upon again. In the language of morality: Humility." - Nietzche

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            What are you trying to prove? So some people are selfish, others pathologically immoral. How does that change anything?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Regarding engaging in (or appearing to engage in) empathy as moral and normal, and to not engage in empathy as immoral and pathological is an attempt to medicalise morality and thus take it out of philosophical discussion. As well as to justify the treatment by society of those who don't engage in empathy. Is morality really to be based on a subjective, vaguely defined, temporary, performative feeling that is not even shared by all people? And why?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well morality is fundamentally about mediating social relationships with general rules. One of the most basic aspects of relationships is empathy, so it really just seems like you're saying morality is arbitrary.

            And on some level it is, but most people are not incapable of empathy and they want to increase general human wellbeing.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Explain precisely how the moral and ethical teachings of the enlightenment have any more validity or value than those of the Koran, Bible, Talmud etc.
            enlightenment systems of government (democracy), much like a court case, are adversarial and perpetual. The result of its operation is a government that contemplates and reflects the competing interests of society. It requires compromise to operate and in that way and to some extent it addresses these competing interests. It's perpetual nature ensures that it is always reflective of current sentiments and that dead men are not controlling the living.
            The product of all of this is an organization of society that is not entirely arbitrary. This is what makes them distinct from abrahamic texts which are not just arbitrary merely by virtue of being dogmatic, but specifically because the abrahamic god is supreme and has no checks or assurances for anything he does. You just have to accept it because the universe's moral compass and god's own moral compass are one and the same.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            To say that the US government in theory or in practice is anything but arbitrary is wrong. Even if one is to say that their processes are in some sense "objective", the laws and values that create those processes are made up.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >To say that the US government in theory or in practice is anything but arbitrary is wrong.
            reasoning undergirds a fair bit of our domestic policy, the judiciary most of all. The realm in which the US government is the most arbitrary is in foreign relations, which is a characteristic that they inherited from the British monarchy, which is to say that our democratic government is most arbitrary when it's not being democratic.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      How can one determine what is dangerous? Why ought it be that danger is prevented?

      >religious larpers will claim with a straight face the truth is valuable, but you should followed their very specific version of a specific religion because its the absolute truth

      I'm not religious.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Well life in general calls for nuance, which isn't possible if you hold that all your principles are God-given and therefore unbreakable. Even innocuous principles like "life is sacred" result in opposition to consentual assisted suicide for the terminally ill. God forbid the fentanyl-iv'd invalid gets released from his pain a little faster! And then there are the obviously dangerous dogma, like jihad or original sin.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why does life call for nuance? Nuance regarding what exactly?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Okay but why does anything matter at fricking all? If there is no God and no spirit, and everything is just a bunch of atoms floating in space, and your consciousness is the result of nothing but a series of complicated chemical processes, what's the point of anything? You can make claims like, "religion is harmful", but what is harm then? And if you find a nice definition of harm, that excludes all the things you want it to exclude, like assisted suicide of the terminally ill, and you prove that religion fits into this definition of harm, then why does it matter whether or not people are harming each other? And that's where the cope begins: Oh there are certain principles humans have been following for millennia, or Oh do you really need religion to see that we shouldn't be murdering each other? But you people never get the fricking point. It's not about "you're a bad person if you're atheist because we get our morality from God", it's that if atheistic materialism is true, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for us to follow a moral code. It's about the logic. You can have no logical justification for moral principles. No matter how rational you people claim to be, you ultimately pull your morality out of your ass. You can decide on a set of principles like "oh harm is bad, an action is immoral if it increases harm, and moral if it causes no harm or if it decreases harm" and you can go from this one fundamental moral axiom (or any other axiom you can think of) and draw from it a whole set of moral principles, and you'll think yourself a very rational intelligent person for all this, but ultimately your morality comes from your social conditioning, and nowhere else. You don't come up with the axioms first, and then the principles. You already have principles left over from societal conditioning, and you choose the axioms you know will lead to these principles, but I'm running out of space and I'm nof going to make another post just to finish this stup

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Okay but why does anything matter at fricking all?
            because I have an interest in ascribing meaning to things. The counter to my interest is an interest in ascribing meaning to nothing and feeling despair. The counterinterest in inactivity is presumptively invalid because no case can be made for its validity, so therefore it must yield to my interest in activity.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >religious larpers will claim with a straight face the truth is valuable, but you should followed their very specific version of a specific religion because its the absolute truth

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    SECULARISM!
    LEARN THE WORD!
    HOLY! FRICKING! SHIT!
    ATHEIST ATHEIST ATHEIST!
    IT'S ALWAYS ATHEISTS TO YOU FRICKING IDIOTIC CHUCKLE FRICKS!

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Atheism, not secularism

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    "Atheists" are people who are mad at God for a variety of reasons, usually stemming from loss or disappointment.
    We have seen this today with the balding 5'2" guys, and last week with the gigaspammer saying he was going to be God's #1 enemy and the top general for satan.

    I was previously an athiest and when you actually legit don't believe, it doesn't matter to you at all. You don't even think of it beyond thinking christians are kind of funny. But the vehement kind still believe they're just mad.

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because religion still hasn’t adequately refuted the problem of evil

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Because religion still hasn’t adequately refuted the problem of evil

    Why should one care about the supposed swindlers in churches or the dialects of such things as the problem of evil? What even is evil?

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >it's okay to spread lies or believe a lie if it's more comfortable
    As if religitards couldn't get more pathetic, holy shit.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why isn't it okay? What is the "truth" and what is a "lie" is merely a matter of interpretation. The question I ask, is if atheism is true, why does it matter? Why not believe anything whatsoever? If it it suits you, or if it doesn't.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Why seek truth
        I am predisposed to do so
        >Why not believe anything else
        Like what? A cute waifu god who loves you? A paternal god that gets you to improve? It is a lot harder than you imply to just believe in something. If you mean believing in an existing religion, its a bundle of interconnected doctrines. You have to take the good with the bad. No thank you!

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          That you, or myself or anyone is predisposed to truth is a very dubious and self-complacent claim. The historical record refutes it at every turn. Besides that, why ought this supposed predisposition be valued or followed? And could not someone say that they are similarly predisposed towards lies, or some other goal that can disregard truth? Who is to say that he is "wrong"? And actually, it is not correct to say that you are predisposed towards "truth", you imagine yourself to be predisposed to truth, but you are actually following only what you perceive to be the truth. In fact, you can ONLY follow that which you interpret as the truth. Who is to say that which you believe to be true corresponds to anything at all? You could be chasing a flawed, unfalsifiable apprehension of what you think is true. Truth is merely a value judgement you arbitrarily make on subjective interpretations.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Its the same claim Aristotle makes. If it is recast as "curiosity" is it more palatable?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Seeking knowledge is different from seeking truth. Knowledge can consist of familiarising oneself with various interpretations, one can be knowledgeable in matters that don't relate to truth. Thomas Aquinas had much knowledge, but would an atheist say he had truth? Knowledge is possible, but is truth possible? Can humans step outside of their own interpretations?

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do people so fervently advocate atheism?
    A lack of shared definitions, and the desire to stimulate one's own ego, instead of understanding others.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because God is not real. Mankind is a mistake.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      What delusion! How can you say whether anything is a mistake? Or whether it is correct? There is no flaw in the universe, except for that which you have put there with your interpretation.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Right, whatever. I would just rather not be born.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          One one has knowledge of suicide, one implicitly accepts life with every moment. And he certainly should.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think we should believe what is true.

    I'd probably argue with someone who thought there was a teapot orbiting Saturn, even though such a belief doesn't really matter and harms no one.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >If atheism is true, there is no real purpose to believing in it, or convincing others of it.

    truth has done a lot of good for society, but I mostly argue against theists because they've done so much damage to people I know. Society would be a lot better without religion.

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    They're rabbid dogs.
    "Join ussssssss" is their mantra.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/R13x1sp.jpg

      Why do people so fervently advocate atheism? What's the point of atheism? If atheism is "true" or one accepts it as such, then it doesn't really matter if it's true. Is it because the truth valuable? If so, why? Is it because religion is "harmful"? If so, how can one determine what is harmful or that harm ought be avoided? If atheism is true, there is no real purpose to believing in it, or convincing others of it.

      Don't look for a reason. It doesn't extend far beyond what appeals to the eye.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I get cynical in my old age.

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do people advocate the number 4?

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >please worship my desert god
    No

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *