Richard of the secular realm
@LatFilosof
28. Star Wars Apologist. Orcas are the best and pineapple belongs on pizza. 🇸🇪🏳️🌈 Ally. Defender of atheism and theism. Atheist in 99.9% of relevant cases.
I was 22, thought I was smart, joined a discord server with the goal of ”owning these silly theists”. It took no more than an hour for me to realise how little I knew. 6 years later I am actively pursuing a degree in philosophy.
How did you get into philosophy?
The notion those in a personal relationship with a morally perfect creator/teacher shouldn’t be expected to be far better people on average than those not in such a relationship is as insane as the claim that theists are far better people on average.
One of the reasons I think atheism could be false: the existence of other minds. One of the reasons I think theism could be false: those same minds experiencing horrendous suffering. Two reasons I am a very confused and conflicted philosopher: see above.
Sorry to the people still waiting on this one. It is a lot of reading to do as I want to be highly scientifically accurate. My previous substacks has been more informal and stuff I already knew very well. Just hang on, I am working on it!
Going to write a substack on why belief in the supernatural and teleological thinking isn’t the result of indoctrination, it’s intrinsic to human cognition. Atheism often requires cognitive override and/or reflection, so it’s not the “default” position it’s often assumed to be.
We are more related to Chimps than Mice are to Rats.
Chimps and humans aren’t related.
''Religion is child indoctrination''
What makes you roll your eyes everytime you hear it
You are a rationalist philosopher.
what’s it called when you’re very smart but can’t remember anything and know literally nothing
Can’t respond because I’m blocked by 2PA. But Frank Tureks understanding of biology and evolution is lower than a 9th graders. He is either willfully ignorant (given his resources) or a grifter.
@LatFilosof vs Turek debate when?
This is true, but not in the way AiG means it. God is the 'best' hypothesis in the sense that, if He exists, He could explain anything—maximal explanatory power. But AiG’s literalist view forces Scripture to violate known laws of nature, which destroys their case.
Creation explains the evidence better than evolution does.
Maybe the real God was the friends we made along the way!
What if theism was true? That would be crazy! Unless...
What if theism was true? That would be crazy! Unless...
Dear fellow atheists, please stop with this nonsense.
I'm willing to bet most Christians who claim they were atheist were never really atheists.
It is contradictory to the nature of reason itself.
If you’re an atheist, what reason do you have to not lie?