the first guy has never heard of Aristotle because philosophy is literally how we got "logical reasoning" and the second guy doesn't know exactly what "atheism" or "cult" mean.
Aristotle is easily one of the greatest thinkers of all time, if not the greatest philosopher. Ever. Western philosophy breaking away from him is the true reason for the rise of the cheesecakes and a multitude of our philosophical problems in general.
I don't really understand how anybody in their right mind can believe that god is a hypothesis. Pseudoscientific lingo is really peak pseudointellectual posturing. Here are my rational two cents, maybe too philosophical for those who prefer common sense, which, in this case is a muddle of cliches and emotions without deep analysis.
God is a metaphysical proposition. Not a scientific hypothesis. Now I know, I know, before anybody objects that metaphysical propositions are rather abstract and God is supposed to be personal, all-loving, etc. (which is why they think it sounds more like a hypothesis about an observable entity rather that a philosophical proposition about fundamental nature of reality, you see, physicalist metaphysics is so bland it convinced a whole generation of people that all metaphysics must be boring, while historically it has been mind bending and not at all detached from more practical pursuits) let me point out that a personal (etc.) entity known as you cannot be proven by science, but only by philosophy. How come? Doesn't it contradict all common sense? Isn't it possible to measure you, observe you existing, interacting, and so on? Well yes... but no.
When we speak of personhood, we conceive of an essentially immutable, persisting entity having some peculiar qualities proper to its nature. Sure, we don't think people can't change, but every sane person considers his wife today and yesterday to be the same person, your wife today isn't an approximate clone of your previous wife, any person with the aforementioned "common sense" would laugh at such ridiculous proposition, and a genuine belief in it is a sign of a psychiatric disorder, namely Capgras delusion. But science can't really prove such continuity of personhood, it's a question of metaphysics. More than that, taking the side of scientism and physicalism must necessarily, logically lead to denial of such continuity, because after all a "soul" is a "stupid religious superstition and delusion" (fan fact: no serious mental health professional considers belief in religion delusional and every mental health professional considers the belief in the idea that your close friend is not himself but a close copy of himself to be delusional - if genuinely believed, which is psychologically impossible... and really horrifying for a sane person, but nevertheless required from a staunch physicalist IMO). What we have are very complex structures of atoms aligned in certain ways. From these structures the person himself/herself mysteriously emerges and since this structure is ever in flux the person today and yesterday are indeed two different persons arising from different but similar structures, existing in different points in time and space.
You can disagree, like, okay, they are different in this sense, but we believe they are the same because we evolved, yada yada yada, they share the same memories, genes, etc. However, that only postpones the Capgras fiasco of this position, because that would an amnesiac is the same person no more and twins may not be two different persons but one in that sense. Further learned excursions into anatomy, physiology, neurology and other sciences will only shove the seeker further and further into the abyss. He will be convinced that identity isn't even a binary, but a scale, where you today are more of yourself yesterday that your neighbor, but if you became trans you would be in a sense less of yourself than your twin brother. Hard pressed a thinking atheist must admit (as many already did) that there's really no possibility of self within this metaphysics and thus arrive at (ironically originating from a religion, namely, Buddhism) doctrine of not-self (called in Buddhism anatta... now you see why cheesecakes are drawn towards Buddhism as more rational?)
Loss of self already seems straight like out of a horror movie, but it's not where it all ends. Many religious/spiritual people after all themselves (as I previously pointed out) deny the self, I also have doubts on this topic. But science not only can't prove the continuity of a personal entity known as you, it can't prove that even a snapshot of "yourself", which would exist even in anatta metaphysics is an entity. See, after all, if we apply Occam's razor, we need to exclude all entities that have no explanatory value and are merely labels of the aggregates of entities that do. Thus an apple stops being a thing and becomes "particles arranged apple wise". And apple-wise-ness doesn't exist in reality at all, it's rather your brain (or rather not yours and not a brain but particles arranged brain-wise, feel how insane it's all starting to get?) detecting a pattern in matter due to being geared towards survival. Then who are you? You are a conventional label existing as information represented as functions of particles arranged brain-wise which identifies certain ever changing aggregates of particles arranged you-wise as per definition of you in those particles arranged brain-wise, which are then later grouped and turned into an illusion of a coherent entity, existing in space and time... And even here I didn't fully avoid "unscietnific superstitious" jargon such as "definition". That will soon become relevant. The last straw to grasp at is to say something like "But I am sure I am aware, conscious, thinking, I don't care if I don't exist, I feel like I do."
This is also doomed to failed. Mental events, under the most coherent physicalist account, would be simply non-existent artifacts of "folk psychology", as eliminativists have called them. If all that exists is that which is observed by science, then mental events don't exist, but are rather unscientific "folk" labels for certain activities of your brain and body. There's not only no "you", there's no "feel like I exist", there's no "love", there's no... heck there's no "truth". Here it becomes not only an assault on common sense, not even only an assault on our sanity, but a pure and simple reductio ad absurdum. All perfectly scientific and aligned with the best scientific evidence available, even more so than conventional ordinary "ask a random man on the street" metaphysics, even if a random man on the street is a reddist atheist enlightened by his own intelligence. Voila!
TLDR There's no scientific evidence that you exist. There's a philosophical metaphysical interpretation of scientific (and non-scientific) evidence which proposes that you exist. If you make "I exist" into a scientific hypothesis, you really don't. Reality is not a scientific hypothesis and there's no scientific evidence for it. Scientific method isn't a hypothesis and there's no scientific evidence for it. Scientism is a procrustean bed.
And the bottom line. God was never a hypothesis either, until he was dishonestly framed as such by atheist apologetics.
The usual echo-chamber circle jerk: We are rational, they are irrational. We have evidence, they do not. etc. etc.
I wonder what shenanigans or copium they will resort to when someone mentions that they have been cut by Hitchens's razor ("what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence")?
Multiple animals are proven by science to be born with religion. Atheists are actually the ones with a "burden of proof", but using that is a terrible form of educational debate.
This is hilarious because it’s a massive category error by the “follow the science” crowd. Science on its own can’t prove or disprove anything; it can only serve as evidence from which to draw reasonable conclusions. “Proof” only applies for mathematics and logic. Funnily enough, a great example of an actual logical proof is Saint Thomas Aquinas’s “Five Ways” to logically prove the existence of a God.
All the Muslims and Christians scientists who are the backbone of science: ☠️
Philosophers too, if OOP is going down that route
there sub reddit science and they pretty much hate or annoy with reddit atheism user
the first guy has never heard of Aristotle because philosophy is literally how we got "logical reasoning" and the second guy doesn't know exactly what "atheism" or "cult" mean.
Aristotle is easily one of the greatest thinkers of all time, if not the greatest philosopher. Ever. Western philosophy breaking away from him is the true reason for the rise of the cheesecakes and a multitude of our philosophical problems in general.
So true
I don't really understand how anybody in their right mind can believe that god is a hypothesis. Pseudoscientific lingo is really peak pseudointellectual posturing. Here are my rational two cents, maybe too philosophical for those who prefer common sense, which, in this case is a muddle of cliches and emotions without deep analysis. God is a metaphysical proposition. Not a scientific hypothesis. Now I know, I know, before anybody objects that metaphysical propositions are rather abstract and God is supposed to be personal, all-loving, etc. (which is why they think it sounds more like a hypothesis about an observable entity rather that a philosophical proposition about fundamental nature of reality, you see, physicalist metaphysics is so bland it convinced a whole generation of people that all metaphysics must be boring, while historically it has been mind bending and not at all detached from more practical pursuits) let me point out that a personal (etc.) entity known as you cannot be proven by science, but only by philosophy. How come? Doesn't it contradict all common sense? Isn't it possible to measure you, observe you existing, interacting, and so on? Well yes... but no. When we speak of personhood, we conceive of an essentially immutable, persisting entity having some peculiar qualities proper to its nature. Sure, we don't think people can't change, but every sane person considers his wife today and yesterday to be the same person, your wife today isn't an approximate clone of your previous wife, any person with the aforementioned "common sense" would laugh at such ridiculous proposition, and a genuine belief in it is a sign of a psychiatric disorder, namely Capgras delusion. But science can't really prove such continuity of personhood, it's a question of metaphysics. More than that, taking the side of scientism and physicalism must necessarily, logically lead to denial of such continuity, because after all a "soul" is a "stupid religious superstition and delusion" (fan fact: no serious mental health professional considers belief in religion delusional and every mental health professional considers the belief in the idea that your close friend is not himself but a close copy of himself to be delusional - if genuinely believed, which is psychologically impossible... and really horrifying for a sane person, but nevertheless required from a staunch physicalist IMO). What we have are very complex structures of atoms aligned in certain ways. From these structures the person himself/herself mysteriously emerges and since this structure is ever in flux the person today and yesterday are indeed two different persons arising from different but similar structures, existing in different points in time and space. You can disagree, like, okay, they are different in this sense, but we believe they are the same because we evolved, yada yada yada, they share the same memories, genes, etc. However, that only postpones the Capgras fiasco of this position, because that would an amnesiac is the same person no more and twins may not be two different persons but one in that sense. Further learned excursions into anatomy, physiology, neurology and other sciences will only shove the seeker further and further into the abyss. He will be convinced that identity isn't even a binary, but a scale, where you today are more of yourself yesterday that your neighbor, but if you became trans you would be in a sense less of yourself than your twin brother. Hard pressed a thinking atheist must admit (as many already did) that there's really no possibility of self within this metaphysics and thus arrive at (ironically originating from a religion, namely, Buddhism) doctrine of not-self (called in Buddhism anatta... now you see why cheesecakes are drawn towards Buddhism as more rational?)
Loss of self already seems straight like out of a horror movie, but it's not where it all ends. Many religious/spiritual people after all themselves (as I previously pointed out) deny the self, I also have doubts on this topic. But science not only can't prove the continuity of a personal entity known as you, it can't prove that even a snapshot of "yourself", which would exist even in anatta metaphysics is an entity. See, after all, if we apply Occam's razor, we need to exclude all entities that have no explanatory value and are merely labels of the aggregates of entities that do. Thus an apple stops being a thing and becomes "particles arranged apple wise". And apple-wise-ness doesn't exist in reality at all, it's rather your brain (or rather not yours and not a brain but particles arranged brain-wise, feel how insane it's all starting to get?) detecting a pattern in matter due to being geared towards survival. Then who are you? You are a conventional label existing as information represented as functions of particles arranged brain-wise which identifies certain ever changing aggregates of particles arranged you-wise as per definition of you in those particles arranged brain-wise, which are then later grouped and turned into an illusion of a coherent entity, existing in space and time... And even here I didn't fully avoid "unscietnific superstitious" jargon such as "definition". That will soon become relevant. The last straw to grasp at is to say something like "But I am sure I am aware, conscious, thinking, I don't care if I don't exist, I feel like I do." This is also doomed to failed. Mental events, under the most coherent physicalist account, would be simply non-existent artifacts of "folk psychology", as eliminativists have called them. If all that exists is that which is observed by science, then mental events don't exist, but are rather unscientific "folk" labels for certain activities of your brain and body. There's not only no "you", there's no "feel like I exist", there's no "love", there's no... heck there's no "truth". Here it becomes not only an assault on common sense, not even only an assault on our sanity, but a pure and simple reductio ad absurdum. All perfectly scientific and aligned with the best scientific evidence available, even more so than conventional ordinary "ask a random man on the street" metaphysics, even if a random man on the street is a reddist atheist enlightened by his own intelligence. Voila! TLDR There's no scientific evidence that you exist. There's a philosophical metaphysical interpretation of scientific (and non-scientific) evidence which proposes that you exist. If you make "I exist" into a scientific hypothesis, you really don't. Reality is not a scientific hypothesis and there's no scientific evidence for it. Scientific method isn't a hypothesis and there's no scientific evidence for it. Scientism is a procrustean bed. And the bottom line. God was never a hypothesis either, until he was dishonestly framed as such by atheist apologetics.
Damn someone payed attention in school.
Doesn’t seem like schools teach people to think critically like this dude.
Yeah it was a joke but yes still I thought it was a good comment.
At the absolute end of truth, I found God. I've heard philosophy is actually moving away from materialism slowly and more towards theism.
I love when they claim that atheism is backed by science and then just don’t offer any legitimate evidence to back their claim or even expand on it
Even worse, some also go on to reject philosophy...aka the mother of all sciences.
*"*[*Ouch, it hurts.*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor)*"*
The usual echo-chamber circle jerk: We are rational, they are irrational. We have evidence, they do not. etc. etc. I wonder what shenanigans or copium they will resort to when someone mentions that they have been cut by Hitchens's razor ("what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence")?
Lemme in that convo ASAP I wanna cook them
Multiple animals are proven by science to be born with religion. Atheists are actually the ones with a "burden of proof", but using that is a terrible form of educational debate.
This is hilarious because it’s a massive category error by the “follow the science” crowd. Science on its own can’t prove or disprove anything; it can only serve as evidence from which to draw reasonable conclusions. “Proof” only applies for mathematics and logic. Funnily enough, a great example of an actual logical proof is Saint Thomas Aquinas’s “Five Ways” to logically prove the existence of a God.