There's a new /777/ up, it's /selfhelp/ -
You're Pathetic, We're Pathetic, We Can Do This! Check it out. Suggest new
Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7:
.m3u file. Music via
For growing and shit or whatever I present to you:
Best Christian philosopher in the world
Richard Dawkins is this guy's bitch
He humiliated Sam Harris
He defeated Christopher Hitchens
He defeated Victor Stenger twice
This thread is for discussion of the validity of religion(s) and arguments for and against the existence of god/gods.
Any other new posts about this subject will be deleted, or locked and referred to this one.
New threads about religious concepts that play inside their own ruleset are allowed, and we kindly ask that you refrain from turning those well meaning threads into arguments about religion as a whole.
Do Neanderthals go to heaven? They buried their dead with grave goods.
We (white people) have 3% of their DNA. Do we get their gods, do they get ours?
Do we get into their afterlife, do they get into ours?
We interrupt your scheduled bickering for this important announcement: Understanding /phi/
I shouldn't have to remind you, but if someone is posting something against the rules, please report it.
If you don't know how to report a post, please see our super-sugoi FAQ section on the front page.
Thank you for your co-operation.
Let's get down to it.
What is the meaning of life?
Hang on who is to say it hasn't been figured out? Can I convince you to join my religion? Or can you convince you to join your?
What is the test for truth?
The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.
We will durp around for the next 20 years until the computers tell us what to believe.
Deep AI that knows everything is better then any prophet
, SCIENCE WP.jpg
> The meaning of life is 42.
Several years ago, I was minding my own business and an interpretation of that story suddenly hit me.
A supercomputer did science for millions of years and obtained 42. This number can be said to represent science itself, the raw data of the universe, its mechanics and all input and events.
But to create a purpose and inherent level of importance for raw data, you need to ask questions. So that perhaps there exists some "Ultimate Question to the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything" as described in the story. And apparently it would require a larger computer, operating much longer, trying things that defy logic.
Things like religion and philosophy can be seen as attempts to posit such question, possibly drawing it from some source that is not included in the raw data; i.e., the physical universe.
Adams was atheist and I doubt he would like this interpretation, but he's dead so whatever.
Do you, my fellow philosophers, think suicide and anorexia are a result of north american consumerism and the culture of always wanting to be better, or are just diseases that people are born with?
If there is no point in the universe that we discover by the methods of science, there is a point that we can give the universe by the way we live, by loving each other, by discovering things about nature, by creating works of art.
That—in a way, although we are not the stars in a cosmic drama, if the only drama we're starring in is one that we are making up as we go along, it is not entirely ignoble that faced with this unloving, impersonal universe we make a little island of warmth and love and science and art for ourselves.
That's not an entirely despicable role for us to play.
Quote from the mod post
"A place to spew incoherent nonsense and verbal diarrhea"
Thats what philosophy is. Science absolutely destroys philosophy and spreading philosophies popularity in use by having this board exist is helping to keep society as a whole from using superior methods of problem solving that would help make the world a better place
Please mods and staff of 7chan delete this board
Philosophy makes us ask why. Science answers the whats. The more whats we figure out, the more we wanna know why. They piggyback off of each other. Science might get us where we want to be, but we wouldn't have gotten there without philosophy.
Science is the methodologically applied philosophy of nature.
But what if the religion does not use god, as its basis, but natural spirits such as various religions of north american first nations.
Worst place to ask since 99% of you couldn't even think of "letting go".
How do I let go of my ego? Or another way of asking is "how do I stop the desire to prove myself worthy among my peers?". It's totally unnecessary, and sitting at home alone I can comfortably say that it's doable and the mindset actually worth having, but when I leave the door I cannot stop myself from becoming a totally different person. That is, one who feeds off the facial expressions of another person and who constantly seeks their approval, or "good" facial expressions. I genuinely don't care what they think when I'm home alone at the end of the day but I guess I still do if I'm behaving this way.
In asking this I'm hoping to find that 1% who can genuinely relate to me and may have found a solution, or at least philosophical banters that put my mind in solace when I leave the doors. (The answer "just stop caring" isn't as easy as you might think).
I think taming your ego and letting go are not the same.
You can probably don't think much about yourself and still care about things and people, only you become less manipulative and do not seek attention (you may seek attention for love etc... but you dont care enough for praise or other empty stuff)
...But that's just like my oppinion, maaan...
Step 1: Read/study Hagakure
Step 2: Find something or someone to serve
Step 3: ?????
Step 4: Profit!
p.s. loosely based on personal experience
you dont. ego is what made this world work its a mans instinct
Wha'd'u think about Antinatalism/Having kids is unethical?
1. The presence of pain is bad.
2. The presence of pleasure is good.
3. The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
4. The absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
If I produce offspring, I'd be doing it for myself, not for them. I couldn't give less of a shit about what they feel. Sure, I'll take good care of them if that produces some kind of desirable outcome for me. But if it doesn't, I won't.
I've been thinking about this and have come to the conclusion that Antinatalism is stupid.
Really think about all the works mankind; humanity has an obligation to itself. And Antinatalism's position on sentient beings is as follows: nonexistence is superior existence. They muse that there are beings that experienced reality, that thought outside of themselves, that conquered nature and created civilization; however, they should be done away with because they feel bad. Is this what things have come down to? Why should "muh feelings" be more important than anything else?
This is similar to how Theodore Kaczynski wished to destroy Industrial Society because of "muh feelings," rather than caring more about Objective Truth and getting the human species off of planet Earth.
Antinatalism has some ties with Pessimism (as embodied by Schopenhauer) and here's a long running related thread
, Parmenides of Elea.jpg
Hey /phi/ I have to do a library research task for University and I have to find 10 sources to reference in my essay about the topic "Is it possible to know anything for certain?" I'm having trouble finding sources as I am very new to the academic side of philosophy and so I don't have a vast knowledge of philosophers, texts or specific theories and ideas. Any help would be GREATLY appreciated. Cheers.
you should also consider just googling epistemology syllabi.
I fucking hate that question so much. It always devolves into solipsistic bullshit.
"Oh hey you can't trust your own sensory perceptions blah blah blah maybe you're not even real blah blah blah."
Well maybe I should punch you in the face. You have no right to get mad because NO I DIDN'T, AND IF YOU THINK I DID THEN MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T TRUST YOUR SENSORY PERCEPTIONS. I'M NOT REAL AFTER ALL, AND YOU CAN'T BE CERTAIN THAT I AM.
If you didn't get the picture, I fucking hate solipsists. More flawed than political correctness. At least you can debate ethics, solipsism can just be proven wrong with a punch to the face.
But yeah, thread topic. Just reference a bunch of mathematical texts. Doesn't even have to be calculus shit, it can be basic arithmetic. You could also probably get away with fucking around with people who disagree with your thesis by annoying them and feigning ignorance.
But seriously, fuck that question.
OP, a priori knowledge is totally true. The law of identity (A=A) is true; think about mathematics: 2+2=4. It does't matter if you have a false conscience or whatever, because it is 100% true.
Yeah I find that bullshit retarded too. Science is true, and anyone who disagrees with this objective reality can jump off a building. Furthermore, extreme skepticism is garbage. People should be faithful to the Earth in all its realism. And I hate this, "The Golden Rule is there is no Golden Rule," crap. Perhaps there should be a Golden Rule lest everything come down to Subjective Truth.
Consider someone with multiple personality disorder.
How would a Materialist and an Idealist view this phenomenon?
I don't know what either of those are but what would happen if someone with it had two personalities wherein one was a materialist and the other an idealist and they knew of each other
how would they reconcile the shared experiences?