420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
God should be VAC b& by Phoebe Siddleman - Tue, 06 Feb 2018 12:54:26 EST ID:xc7CY0zb No.208664 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1517939666716.jpg -(152017B / 148.45KB, 1920x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 152017
God is a concept that defies logic and language.
>>
Frederick Huvinglock - Tue, 06 Feb 2018 17:23:26 EST ID:Kpl02ca1 No.208665 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1517955806376.jpg -(726094B / 709.08KB, 2599x1462) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208664
There is nothing so hidden that you cannot know it by its fruits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology
>>
Cornelius Fanspear - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 13:24:21 EST ID:pDpYFcmy No.208675 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Usually the burden of proof lies on theists but in this case I'm going to need to see your work OP.
>>
Nathaniel Funderstore - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 01:21:43 EST ID:X2T4K+gn No.208708 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518330103222.jpg -(30558B / 29.84KB, 622x477) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208675
OP said god is a concept. Cant be proven in any conventional sense beyond trying to describe something that lies near the foundation of the human experience.

I believe experience ceases after death and that life happened by incident. I dont call myself an athiest because, while I may be one by technicality, the community seems to completely reject the motivation behind the myths of "higher presences". Focusing on monotheism here btw. I have had a "religious experience" and "felt god". These experiences are an order of magnitude more complex than simple chemical releases. There is no single mechanism that creates such experiences. It is a culmination of deep indescribable facets of being human.

I wish I could explain it better. There is no willful ignorance or claim to the supernatural here. Nothing has to be proved. I just challenge others to reach inward and see whats there. You might be surprised.
>>
Samuel Segglefudge - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:10:35 EST ID:Z8O31R6V No.208714 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208708
I like the way you think. I personally air on the side of theistic belief but for the exact same reason. I think that religion and mystical experience are all sort of inadequate attempts to understand something very real, but unimaginably complex. Right now, I think eastern religions and western esotericism come closest to understanding this nebulous "supernatural", but only as a sort of analogy or symbolism. Think truth vs. fact.
>>
Polly Fillyfadge - Sun, 11 Feb 2018 22:42:23 EST ID:X2T4K+gn No.208715 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518406943002.jpg -(86943B / 84.91KB, 628x640) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208714
speaking generally, "supernatural" phenomenon always come down to some form of psychological quirk. For example, Chaos Magick is absolutely quantifiable as psychological phenomena. It uses the placebo effect, it uses and abuses our ability to recognize things we expect to see (eg. hey /x/, I keep seing the number 707 wherever I go), it uses self fulfilling prophecies and a whole host of common fallacies to make us think we did something. All that together however, depending on ones intentions, can possibly create a decent feedback loop for changing oneself in a positive way.

I think thats a poor way of approaching mysticism. The problem is it is willful ignorance. Or just ignorance. It doesnt work if you dont believe. I like the way you put it, pursuing some sort of analogy or symbolism. I have unironically thought I came across "the path god has laid out for me". It was out of nowhere. I fully identified as atheist at the time. But I believe their are internal, psychological processes that are linking this "path" with some sort of bizarre "divine" feeling. Just like the voice in my head that says "dont smoke that bowl, you have to meet your family in an hour" is more benevolent than the voice that says "mmmm, you could probably smoke a bowl right now, you deserve it dont you?" Recognizing the existence of these background processes can really help one lead a good life imho. No denial, woohoo baloney, fallacies, compartmentalization, or foolishness required.
>>
Simon Piffingstod - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 12:51:53 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.208719 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208708
The God experience is just a bunch of chemical releases. A simple mechanic of brain chemistry interacting with brain architecture and cultural teachings.

I've had religious God experiences but even MORE fictional God experiences on psychedelics.
Nothing opens your eyes more than having a full blown religious experience about fictional Gods of The Elder Scrolls videogames.

The key here is that the sum is greater than the parts. What you and most people that refuse to accept that "God" is just a simple concept that arises from our basic biology, is that the "simple" parts aren't simple. Because they're not parts like car parts. They're facets of a greater whole, a greater whole that can completely be explained with biology and biochemistry.
>>
Emma Mocklechetch - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:39:18 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208720 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208719
All phenomena of human cognition are the result of chemical releases interacting with brain architecture and culture. Including all the information and epistemological assumptions that go into your assertion that the greater whole can be completely explained by biology and biochemistry.

If I cannot trust the products of my cognition that experience God because they are neurochemical in nature, then how can I trust the product of my cognition that says I shouldn't trust God experiences because they are neurochemical, which are also neurochemical in nature?
>>
Thomas Bardway - Mon, 12 Feb 2018 19:22:03 EST ID:X2T4K+gn No.208721 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518481323445.jpg -(189522B / 185.08KB, 1000x659) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208719
A simple concept that arises from our basic biology would be something more along the lines of pleasure. Dopamine --> receptor = pleasure. Simple. I've argued that God is much more than this. It has to do with not only psychology but philosophy. It is probably different for every person. It might even be a different combination of not so simple mechanisms at play in each event. For example the sublime feeling created by witnessing the Grand Canyon might feel divine in nature. However my earlier example about finding "Gods Path" might be something different entirely. So the concept of God can be a helpful catch all for describing these powerful experiences. I was raised loosely on Christianity so that no doubt plays a role in why I have even come to use the word God at all, but it could be anything. The whispering winds, the collective unconscious, the Om, my ancestors guiding hands, etc.
>>
Emma Gocklepin - Tue, 13 Feb 2018 18:46:47 EST ID:4+oWREai No.208722 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208664

I don't think there has ever been a more debunked hypothesis about our world than the god hypothesis. It's almost an anti-theory based on how thoroughly debunked it is. If anything, one of the few things we can known with certainty is God's non-existence.

The concept of god itself is very nebulous, so it makes it almost, if not flat out impossible, impossible to argue for in any meaningful way. But even if we defined such a thing with a degree of clarity, the evidences given to prove such a thing always fall flat. Either they are entirely unfalsifiable, or downright false. The only piece left remaining after the debunking is the nebulous concept; Just a fuzzy idea that can be conveniently used interchangeably with words and experiences like 'awe' and 'love'. Making it even more worthless.

I'll say it again. One of the few things we can know for certainty is God's non-existence.
>>
Rebecca Handerhun - Wed, 14 Feb 2018 12:45:35 EST ID:WFGKCTJE No.208734 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208722
But you have just identified the fundamental problem while dodging it. Almost all usages of the term God have highly different meanings and implications, while all 'tests' or attempts to prove or disprove the hypothesis rely on disproving a single, usually very narrow definition of what God is or what that term might be used to entail, and then takes that to mean that all such talk is nonsense.

The tools of materialistic empiricism are not only clumsy at answering metaphysical questions, they invariably lead to errors and absurdities when pressed to answer them, and because of our society's reliance on the empirical method in all other areas of life, in a perverse example of the Peter principle, when empiricism fails to be able to satisfyingly answer metaphysical questions, we have the gall to declare that metaphysical questions have no answers, are irresolvable, or simply refer to nothing at all. This is intellectual short-sightedness on naked display.

Which is a shame, because at earlier periods of human history learned individuals understood that the different sciences have intrinsically different methods, that the techniques of physics don't perfectly translate to metaphysics, and so divided their intellectual labors accordingly. Having forgotten this and in turn elevated obeisance to the scientism to the level of a cult, we have also fomented much of the strife in society that has characterized the modern period, which all could have been avoided with a little more tact, generosity of spirit, and interdisciplinary communication in the past.

In short, I agree that most of the straw-man hypotheses those who have purported to 'test' the God hypothesis were testing for were things that were indeed patently absurd and of course don't exist. I even acknowledge that many of the instances of what people refer to as 'God' fall within the categories of such things, and also don't exist. However, it's also fact that not all interpretations or permutations of the idea of God have been tested, or are testable by our science or are even amenable to the methodologies of materialistic empiricism in principle, and so have not been debunked. The most you can be is agnostic, if we are to be perfectly skeptical and truly scientific -- anything else requires a leap of faith in one direction or another.
>>
Eugene Siggleforth - Thu, 15 Feb 2018 19:04:53 EST ID:blmfRlfa No.208743 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518739493378.jpg -(89029B / 86.94KB, 640x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208734
>However, it's also fact that not all interpretations or permutations of the idea of God have been tested, or are testable by our science or are even amenable to the methodologies of materialistic empiricism in principle, and so have not been debunked.
Well said, its almost as if we can't be absolutely certain about anything at all.
>>
Clara Smallham - Wed, 21 Feb 2018 23:47:48 EST ID:2qiFtTs9 No.208778 Ignore Report Quick Reply
the second coming of christ was the crucifixion and he, which is just the word, returned as humanity
>>
Clara Smallham - Thu, 22 Feb 2018 01:50:52 EST ID:2qiFtTs9 No.208779 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208778
wait then how can you have just described god at all
>>
Edward Drirringstock - Sat, 17 Mar 2018 11:44:02 EST ID:xc7CY0zb No.208928 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208665
Tell that to an ant, who speaks through chemtrails. Will an ant ever know sonder?
>>
Martha Blebblebotch - Thu, 05 Apr 2018 00:13:01 EST ID:cc26aplb No.209022 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1522901581943.jpg -(47794B / 46.67KB, 500x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>208734
>>208743

I like both of these points, and agree with them. But what about this: Say God is the Infinite Infinities, The Source, The ALL. A truly Omnicient Being. It would most certainly, in it's state of Infinite Infinity, be in a plane of existence or a higher dimensional state, perhaps a dimension of Infinite Infinities. And since higher dimensional forms are literally unimaginable, as in you can't fit them in 3D ways of thinking, it's almost obvious that God would be just as unknwoable, if not infinitely more unknowable (while we are still bound to the 3rd dimension).

I think, even if you are an agnostic, you should probe and test for God's presence, because, as I've been shown, sometimes it feels like He pokes back.
>>
Priscilla Gunningfeck - Sat, 07 Apr 2018 05:12:20 EST ID:egVJDaxb No.209030 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>208664

I must confess that after reading this thread I find it unfortunate as an older atheist that people are still concerned with the idea of "the creature in itself." Moreover, a lot of people are still concerned about proofing the existence of God in itself. Without reference to beliefs about the deity that these religions produce. I think this is not only a disservice to both parties in the "Does God exist?" argument but it fundamentally misses the point of what that belief system actually represents to those that believe in them.

Those belief systems are basically predicated on Humans understanding of those "big question" problems that we all experience. Why are we here? What is moral? What is a happy life? What is beautiful? and so on and so on. That is basically what God the concept represents. I'm sorry, I don't give this credit that God is something that actively has to be disproven by Atheists. It's quite clear that it's holdover from East Canaanite yahweh mythology. That very truth, to me, proves that this is not about the "creature in itself," that is, God, but the questions about why we're here what we're supposed to be doing etc etc.
>>
Phoebe Nangerridge - Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:17:45 EST ID:/KXzHYRx No.209069 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209030
I must confess after reading this condescending post that you might not really know what you're talking about.
Religions exist to answer those big questions, why are we here, what are we supposed to be doing, and often times one of the elements of those explanations is the concept of God. That's why it comes up, that's why people focus on 'the creature in itself' not because of God in itself but because of the implications of God on their theory.
Science, on the other hand, does not purport to and even expressly *can not* tell us "why" we are here or what we're "supposed" to be doing. That would be deriving ought from is and Hume's guillotine won't allow it. Science tells us "how" we came to be here, not 'why,' and it has literally zero power to tell us what we 'should' do, it can only empirically quantify what we actually do and have already done.

To illustrate, I'm going to make an ethical claim that it is good that people are alive and it would be bad if everyone in the world died. I assume you agree on a gut level, but I want you to prove to me using the scientific method that this is the case. Hint: you won't be able to. You could measure the number of people in the world. You could measure the number of dollars lost or carbon expended each time someone dies. You could quantify the number of negative emotional neuronal events in each brain as everyone died. But nothing in that would be able to 'prove' that more life is better than less life, that more dollars and less carbon is better than fewer dollars and more carbon, or that pain is worse than pleasure. For that you need metaphysical systems of values which science is in principle incapable of supplying.
>>
Eugene Pittson - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 02:43:10 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.209097 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209069
>I must confess after reading this condescending post that you might not really know what you're talking about.

Ok.

>Religions exist to answer those big questions, why are we here, what are we supposed to be doing, and often times one of the elements of those explanations is the concept of God. That's why it comes up, that's why people focus on 'the creature in itself' not because of God in itself but because of the implications of God on their theory.

That's pretty much what I said phrased differently.

>Science, on the other hand, does not purport to and even expressly *can not* tell us "why" we are here or what we're "supposed" to be doing. That would be deriving ought from is and Hume's guillotine won't allow it. Science tells us "how" we came to be here, not 'why,' and it has literally zero power to tell us what we 'should' do, it can only empirically quantify what we actually do and have already done.

Right.

>To illustrate, I'm going to make an ethical claim that it is good that people are alive and it would be bad if everyone in the world died. I assume you agree on a gut level, but I want you to prove to me using the scientific method that this is the case. Hint: you won't be able to. You could measure the number of people in the world. You could measure the number of dollars lost or carbon expended each time someone dies. You could quantify the number of negative emotional neuronal events in each brain as everyone died. But nothing in that would be able to 'prove' that more life is better than less life, that more dollars and less carbon is better than fewer dollars and more carbon, or that pain is worse than pleasure. For that you need metaphysical systems of values which science is in principle incapable of supplying.

Right.

What is your point here in your whole post? I didn't bring up the ethical implications of a deity not existing, nor did I bring up the whole "science cannot derive meaning" argument. So what are you actually responding to?

You don't appear to be actually disagreeing with me but instead taking some kind of exception to how I type.
>>
Clara Wuddleway - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 08:40:48 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209098 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209069
>Religions exist to answer those big questions

If that is the case, religion has failed immensely in all its important functions. FUCK OFF. Religion has zero function in answering big questions. OR ELSE PHILOSOPHY WAS FUCKING CALLED RELIGION YOU FUCKING MONGOLOID.

Religion exists to give temporary peace of mind in hard times. It's like a big box of mental bandaids.

>awww terrorist attack? go to church
>awww your mom died? go to church
>awww that volcano underneath your house exploded and all your neighbours burned alive? go to church

Immediate mental relief. It won't do shit over time when the nagging in the back of your mind starts though.
>>
Henry Blorringway - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:40:26 EST ID:KdSY7mf7 No.209099 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209097
My issue wasn't with how you type, I was responding to your basic claim, at least as I understood it, 'why/how do people focus on God in-and-of-itself? Shouldn't we instead be focusing on the effects?' and I just tried to say, 'what appears to be focusing on the idea of God really is focusing on the effects.' that's all.

>>209098
Why is it that most of the time you can be reasonable but as soon as someone mentions religion you start jabbering like a fucking lunatic? Why does it trigger you so intensely? Maybe your extremely disproportionate reaction to the very idea of religion is part of your problem?

Besides, you sidestep my basic claim. How has religion failed it's basic project? It can answer the big question of 'why', not 'how', that's my point. My claim is that the function of religion (and metaphysics more broadly) is to tell us what we "should" do, instead of what "is." That's the big question it is uniquely capable of answering that science if in principle incapable of answering. You could say that's not religion but metaphysics, but I would say that's semantics. Religion is metaphysics for the masses.
>>
Clara Wuddleway - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:42:59 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209100 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209099
>Besides, you sidestep my basic claim. How has religion failed it's basic project? It can answer the big question of 'why', not 'how', that's my point.

Wait what? How can religion answer 'why'? Religion has only answered 'how' in what was then satisfactory answers (creation myths) but are now obsolete. I have no clue what kind of 'why' religion has ever answered at any point in history, even considering the zeitgeist of previous eras.
>>
Henry Blorringway - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:53:04 EST ID:KdSY7mf7 No.209102 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209100
I don't believe you. You can't have that a poor an understanding of things. Ok, I'll humor you.

Take a human being. It's an animal that eats and breathes and shits. Unlike most animals, it can plan its future behavior and even whine about it. "What am I supposed to do!?" it asks.
The scientist can only say, "statistically speaking, humans engage in food-seeking behavior 40% of the time, social interaction 20% of the time, and rest for the remainder. We do not currently understand the process by which humans select which behavior they engage in next, but we suspect it has something to do with the neocortex." and the human being says, "well thanks, but that didn't tell me what I should do at all!"

The metaphysicist says, "you are a being on a search for meaning. You are part of the tapestry of existence, and so have a right to your joys and sorrows. You deserve to build the future you want for yourself, so do what feels right." And the human being can say, "well gee thanks. I don't believe any of that shit, but at least you actually answered my question!"

You could swap out any scientific or metaphysical statements there and the point would still hold. Science empirically quantifies what *is*. Metaphysics (religion) explores the idea of what what is means, and how we *ought* to respond to it. They fulfill different cognitive functions for human beings. Now you could say they have totally different track records, and I would agree. That doesn't invalidate our need for the questions they ask.
>>
Wesley Muvinglodge - Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:36:37 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209109 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209102
>"What am I supposed to do!?

What kind of question is that? What kind of human being is literally so retarded it requires the help of other people to figure out what it wants themselves?
>>
Esther Cheddlestone - Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:23:34 EST ID:+qAOjSrT No.209114 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209109

im pretty sure every person capable of self-awareness who has ever lived has wondered what they should do with their life. don't act so high and mighty as to be above this eternal question. you are being really aggressive for no reason. the guy you are responding to is at least taking the time to talk to you instead of spewing hatred.
>>
Esther Cheddlestone - Tue, 17 Apr 2018 19:25:35 EST ID:+qAOjSrT No.209115 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209109

lol and scrolling down the board i saw another dude spewing hatred, "Did you even read what i wrote you fucking idiot?" and immediately bet it was you. checked the ID's and i was right. why don't you smoke more and chill out? nb
>>
David Sublingfield - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 07:25:32 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209117 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209114
Fucking bullshit. Everyone has hopes and dreams. Just ensure your primary needs, and after that you can chase your deepest desires, work towards them. The guy who replied to me gave me a fucking stupid answer and I wanna get to the bottom of it. Quit fucking whining you fucking wanker.
>>
Emma Goggleville - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:27:04 EST ID:fqkrV/cz No.209126 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209117
Dude no I am sorry you are being really intellectually dishonest here. If you had no need for another person's help to answer the question of what to do with your life you would have never ever opened of philosophy or logged on to /pss./ Please you are acting very childish. Actually respond to what I am saying rather than hiding behind childish word play.
>>
Emma Goggleville - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 11:28:51 EST ID:fqkrV/cz No.209127 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209126
In fact, your assertion that "Just ensure your primary needs, and after that you can chase your deepest desires, work towards them" is a philosophical idea that you didn't come up with on your own, I guarantee it. That assertion is itself full of metaphysical content. nb
>>
David Sublingfield - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:22:42 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209129 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209127
What is there philosophical about "take care of your home, food and drink, then chase dreams"? It's just... a sensible easy way to live life? There's no search for fucking knowledge and deep logical thinking necessary needed to reach the concept that life is just about staying alive, and then doing what fulfils you.

Am I missing something here or are you like heavily religious or some shit? Because I don't really see your problem.
>>
Emma Goggleville - Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:42:46 EST ID:fqkrV/cz No.209130 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209129
There is everything philosophical about it. You are making a value claim about the goodness of home, food, and drink, you're making an ethical claim that what you 'ought' to do is take care of these things, you are implying a policy claim to understand what 'taking care of' such things entails, and you're making a metaphysical claim that dreams are worthwhile things to chase and that chasing them is somehow beneficial. Now

A.) you didn't come up with those ideas on your own, so its disingenuous for you to claim that you have no reason to ask other people about fundamental questions like 'what am I supposed to do?' The very concepts of 'home' and 'dreams' is something that you learned about in school or from society, not invented on your own.

B.) your very objection to my claim (you said no one says 'what am I supposed to do?' and therefore all metaphysical questions and answers are unnecessary) ignores the fact that what I said was an illustrative analogy and not to be taken literally. In order for you to manufacture the answer to that question ('just ensure your primary blah blah...') you had to ask *yourself* 'what am I supposed to do?' And to come up with that answer you had to reference metaphysical theories about value and build them up into a system of ethics, because the answer to that question is necessarily of the form 'you ought to do [blank]' and therefore you need philosophy, specifically metaphysics and ethics, to answer it, since science by definition can't supply those things.

What you are missing here is that you are invalidating an entire branch of human study because you seem to have a knee-jerk emotional bias towards it. Does that make sense to you now, broken down that basically, or are you going to find some new semantic sleight of hand?
>>
William Hebbletid - Thu, 19 Apr 2018 07:53:10 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209131 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209130
>alue claim about the goodness of home, food, and drink

No you fucking retard. That's not a value claim. That's simply a physical necessity of your biological existence. You need a safe clean place to sleep, clean yourself and expel waste for your health, and you need food and drink to continue your existence. There is nothing to discuss on those points, they are cold hard biological facts.
You can go say "yeah but let's discuss the value claim on food and drink and sleep, but that's fucking bullshit because without it you fucking die a horrible death.

You have got a point on the second one, but it's only a slight point. Following dreams does require some philosophical thought on value, meaning etc. in a universe that lacks these. But you still don't need religion for any of those.
>>
Lydia Hecklekick - Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:33:28 EST ID:bz58Upde No.209132 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209131
Jesus why do you have to be so vitriolic. Here's my advice to you; stop doing a bunch of coke before you log onto /pss./ Pack exactly one marijuana, put it to your lips, ignite, and inhale before you post again.

>>That's not a value claim.
Yes, it is. I'm sorry this degenerated into Philo 101 but actually it's you who should be sorry so not really. It might be an extremely basic value claim that almost everyone would readily assent to without any argument, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a value claim. Did you never learn to analyze which parts of a philosophical statement are claims? (Have you never even been in an actual philosophy class? It's ok I won't tell.) If I were a nihilist, I would argue that it is an unwarranted leap to claim that you can ascribe 'goodness' to things that are intrinsically meaningless and only lengthen the amount of time you suffer before dying. And if those statements weren't philosophical value claims and I said that, you would literally have no recourse to defend your opinion. So you better damn well hope they are value claims!

If you want to follow this idea to a deeper level (and I don't mean you, because you will sperg out on some minor misplaced turn of phrase and never actually engage the substance of my comments, but I mean anyone else who may be reading) you could say that sentient (not sapient) life itself must make a value claim even in order to maintain biological existence. What I mean is, a cell maintains homeostasis completely instinctually...instinctual isn't even the right word as it doesn't really have discrete behaviors, it just exists and its various organelles operate. So it does not need to have the opinion that it is 'good' for it to continue eating to survive.
But, as soon as something has a brain stem big enough to coordinate complex behaviors and select between them, every living organism on earth must, at a fundamental, pre-verbal level, assent to the idea that it's daily quest for food is 'good'; it's neuronal pathways balance and coordinate desires and output from different brain regions to select the food seeking behavior over others. But it doesn't always happen this way. Sometimes, for various reasons, an animal will refuse to eat and starve. Even without making a claim about animal consciousness, we can say that the neuronal pathways of the animal in question altered their philosophical opinion about the value of food, thus even for animals these aren't just 'cold hard biological facts;' the idea that food is good, that life is good, is something that the information processing capacity of life constantly weighs out, and occasionally rejects. It's not a given, there's nothing intrinsic about life that says it *has* to seek survival (many organisms fundamentally fail to survive) so the claim that survival or any of the things necessary to it is a given that doesn't constitute a value claim is false.

>>does require some philosophical thought on value, meaning etc. in a universe that lacks these. But you still don't need religion for any of those.
To say that something has value and meaning we have to reach into the branch of philosophy that is metaphysics. We cannot get it from physics (using these terms in their Platonic distinctions.) And we're back to my earlier claim that you ignored that 'religion is metaphysics for the masses.' All religions are watered down metaphysical ideologies pre-packaged for mass consumption. Now that doesn't mean they are all equally valid or good, and the vast majority of them aren't. But if you say religion is useless as such, then you're basically saying metaphysical thinking is useless as such, which means you can only be a logically atomistic materialistic reductionist or else a nihilist, as all other philosophical stances become incoherent without metaphysics or are forced to hide their metaphysics in different places and claim that's not what it is.

Everything you are saying is in defense of some bullshit you claimed earlier which was clearly indefensible, and you were just hoping it wouldn't come up and you wouldn't actually have to defend it by chesting up and acting goofy. Essentially in order for us to be talking about the same thing and for you to win this argument you have to prove both that you don't use metaphysics in your philosophical outlook and that metaphysics is useless and has never produced any results for humanity. So far you are moving the goalposts back to admit that your answer to the question of what you ought to do necessarily includes metaphysics. Just keeping everyone aware of the state of play.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.