Love it when a tradcath cryptofascist gets to dialogue with a tradcath fascist about Wookiepedia-level religious trivia
I'd link but I think it's deleted
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
105 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15840 readers
487 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Every time I try to read a philosophy textbook and it goes into arguments for the existence of any sort of gods, or, more precisely, into the existence of the Christian one, I marvel at those arguments not being dismissed immediately, given how childish they are.
In particular, I have encountered this in a textbook recently: 'god is the most perfect being imaginable and if it did not exist, it would not be perfect'. By that logic, because I can imagine a 10^100000 year old person who openly lives as such and is well-known by everybody in the world, and because to be 10^100000 year old and to live that person would have to exist, such a person exists. Also, Pascal's Wager is probably very well known at this point and how silly and poorly thought-out it is.
Nonsense like that makes me think that philosophy in general is a silly field that lacks any sort of rigour. Hell, they seem to be amazed at the 'cogito ergo sum' line, despite the fact that in the practical contexts where it is true it is obvious, and in the contexts where it isn't true it is, well, not true.
Hot take: philosophers in general should be forced to adopt higher standards of rigour.
One of the jokes of existential comics is that your average gym bro holds themselves to a higher standard of academic rigor than your average academic philosopher.