Agnostic here
>There have been over 3000 political philosophies, only yours is true.
>There has been over 3000 physical models, only yours is true
>There has been over 3000 moral codes, only yours is true
You sound just like the religious you hate
Are atheist hypocrites?
Before some atheist come in here and claim agnosticism is the same thing as atheism
>agnosticism
In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God exists, an atheist disbelieves in God."
Do you believe in God?
Theist: Yes
Atheist: No
Agnostic: Maybe or I will neither confirm nor deny
Don't overthink it
Atheism isn't a moral code or a political philosophy.
>>570964
>>570986
>>570986
>>570986
>>570991
I asked for facts not your feelings
but i guess that is too much to ask
>>570968
No, you subhuman retard.
The question "Do you believe in God?" is a yes or no question. Either you do believe in god right now, or you don't believe in god right now.
If you're agnostic it essentially says that you're uncertain of your answer, and most Atheists are Agnostic Atheists in the sense that they're uncertain whether god exists or not but consider the likelihood of his existence slim enough to not base their lives around the assumption that he does.
>>570998
>Agnostic Atheists
dropped
>>570964
>>570968
Atheism ostensibly should be a lack of belief in a deity but nobody who self describes as an atheist possesses that characteristic, instead they have a belief that there is no deity. Most people who self describe as agnostics are actual atheists. People who describe themselves as atheists are better termed "anti-theist" which is the position you are refuting with your posts.
>>570964
There is absolutely no indication that god exists. Therefore he doesn't.
>inb4 hurr can't kno nuffins
>inb4 absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Yes you can, and yes it is. This kind of unrealistically hard positivism is only ever applied to god.
>>571006
Either trolling or retarded, then again this is a religion thread
>>571010
>just take my word for it without any proof hurr
Your opinion means nothing without facts to back it up
>>571009
Agnosticism and anti-theism are both subsets of atheism. Just like how polytheism and pantheism are both subsets of theism.
Additionally people who believe there is no deity aren't necessarily anti-theists unless they are explicitly against the belief in a deity.
>>571010
I never understood this logic. What exactly is the evidence you would need to prove God in the common sense of the word existed? I would imagine that God, by nature of his common description, obviously cannot be proven by traditional methods even if he were real, so why do so many people insist on that avenue of proof anyways?
>>571023
The fact that there is no proof is exactly my argument.
Here, pic related contains all the proof for god no matter scant it is.
OP = """"""""""agnostic""""""""""
>moral codes
>political philosophies
Nah.
>>571023
How can you disprove something that there is no evidence of? What am I even supposed to argue?
>>570991
Not to nitpick, but heliocentrism far precedes that guy.
>>570998
>most Atheists are Agnostic Atheists in the sense that they're uncertain whether god exists or not but consider the likelihood of his existence slim enough to not base their lives around the assumption that he does.
>consider the likelihood of his existence slim
upon what basis?
>>571026
>What exactly is the evidence you would need to prove God in the common sense of the word existed?
I suppose something so clearly supernatural and inexplicably contrary to what we know.
Like if someone found the Ark of the Covenant and their face melted off on sight. I suppose that would be a compelling case for the Abrahamic god.
>>571034
>upon what basis?
Upon the same basis you dismiss the existence of fairies and vampires: a lack of evidence.
>>571026
Presumably something that doesn't just boil down to "my feels say he exist" followed by some attempt to logic something into existence. Physical evidence of his existence that can't be better explained by naturalistic processes would be handy.
>>571035
>Like if someone found the Ark of the Covenant and their face melted off on sight. I suppose that would be a compelling case for the Abrahamic god.
No it wouldn't. An atheist would just say that the item "Ark of the Covenant" has properties that causes the chemical bonds of the face to break upon exposure (or something along those lines). It would not prove that Yahwah or some similar conception of God is real.
>>570998
This.
>>571041
What exactly would prove it to you? I would say that nothing could prove God in a traditional empirical sense that atheists ask for, even provided that God were real.
>>571042
The art of sciencing something away requires that thing to be either repeatable, or observable across the universe so a pattern can be noticed.
Given there would only be one Ark of the Covenant, and it would appear to be the only thing in existence that melts people like wax, it's clearly supernatural.
>>570964
> Atheist the burden of proof applies as much to you as it does to the Religious
So, care to explain exactly how the atheists are to "prove" that something doesn't exist? You do know that you cannot prove a negative.
Have you ever heard of Russell's Teapot?
The burden of proof lies on the one making the extraordinary claim. And if you don't think that the idea of a hyper-intelligent omnipotent being that transcends space-time and reality as we know it, and has the power to blink an entire universe into existence and *just happens* to look exactly like us, having made us "in his image" isnt pretty fucking extraordinary, then what is?
>>571044
Physical evidence of his presence that wouldn't be better explained by a naturalistic process.
Also if nothing can prove his existence, then why shouldn't we just dismiss it out of hand? Because some people feel really strongly that he exists?
>>570964
How can you prove agnosticism is true?
>>571038
do you really consider the possibility of a creator as the equivalent of a pixie?
>>571046
Saying that it was uncaused is an even greater claim than saying it was caused.
Your absolutism is even more stifling.
>>571057
This is the thing. We have two options
>The universe is uncaused.
Or
>God exists
>God is uncaused
>God caused the universe
Since the former assumes much less than the latter it's the less bold claim.
>>571054
They've listened to too many edgy "comedians", my friend.
Monty Python loving, QI watching, Dan Carlin listening, Richard Dawkins reading "scientific intellectuals" that totally never owned a fedora.
>>571057
>atheism means that you think the universe is uncaused
Yet again the classic agnostic trend of putting random implications on words they don't understand in order to support their own position.
>>571057
No one says it was uncaused. A cause doesn't have to be sapient. Atomic decay has a cause, but I doubt the cause is sapient there either.
>>571054
Do you not? Your feelings are irrelevant when you consider the possibility of whether or not something exists. Evidence is the only thing that matters.
>>571057
>Saying that it was uncaused is an even greater claim than saying it was caused.
How? Is god uncaused?
No, wait, let me guess: God doesn't need a cause because of reasons.
>>571061
The former claims that something can come from nothing.
>>571054
How is it not? They're both supernatural assertions backed without evidence.
>>571067
As does the latter.
>falling for obvious reddit-tier bait
>fedoras get mad
>everyone else gets mad
This board gets worse and worse everyday. It's just turning into a weird version of /b/ and reddit. This thread is proof of it.
I think I'm just going to stop visiting here; I gave it a shot, but you guys take the cake for the most autistic and cancerous faggots on this website.
>>571026
For one we do have scripture which describes him quite well. We take the bible literally and see how far we get. Nowadays, people are eager to dismiss the bible as metaphors but in the past it was taken very literally - it is still taken literally in some parts of the world; not to mention the scripture of other religions, e.g. Islam.
If the scripture itself is false in the sense of contradicting our knowledge of the world we have right now, why would you put belief in it?
Certainly, you could reduce your religion to a believe in some primal cause, some nameless creator being which set things in motion and otherwise doesn't interact with the world. However, if that's your definition of god, then why keep the whole rat's tail of religious tradition? Religious rules, nutritional laws, laws on who to sleep with, laws on what to do to whom, laws on cutting off parts of penises, etc.
No, often this very vague and very uninvasive image of god which some religious people proclaim is a rhetoric tactic to immunise themselves against criticism, paddling back to the most basic form of a god one could imagine, hardly more than something which set the big bang in motion, yet this otherworldly image is used to justify something rather worldly: religious service and the aforementioned rules. The explanation how one connects to the other isn't given.
No, if you want to worship the Christian god and want to follow the bible, then the bible is what is used to see whether that sort of god is likely to exist. Same with Islam and other sorts of religion. And if you want to believe in your own, clock-maker type god who merely set things in motion but otherwise has nothing to do with the world, which certainly isn't the type of god described in the bible, then you're free to believe whatever you want - but certainly that type of god doesn't need Christian religious service.
>>571065
feelings are irrelevant
it's just that a pixie, by definition, is a mythical creature, a small, childlike imp that dances around in the moorland areas of Devon and Cornwall... again, by definition, mythical, and even mythically, exist in the 3D world
there is no reason to believe such creatures exist... there is clearly a reason to at least suppose a creator, since we have no explanation for how the universe, people and kittens exist
only an autist could compare the two
>>571067
Where do you get that from? Lack of causation means that something doesn't have to come from anything, since it has always been. According to this belief, the universe has always been.
>as much to you as it does to the Religious
Regarding the existence of God? Sure. But the Religious then say "there is a God" AND "he is like this, he wants humans to do X, Y and Z, and will reward followers with SOMETHING in return. I know all this because some human said so hundreds of years ago."
>>571045
>Given there would only be one Ark of the Covenant,
For all you know, there could be more that were undiscovered. You couldn't even prove it was the Ark of the Covenant of lore. it could be some alien artifact for all you know.
>and it would appear to be the only thing in existence that melts people like wax, it's clearly supernatural.
Again, it could be some high tech technology or something, not "the Ark of the Covenant". Even if it were the Ark, I would believe an atheist is more lively to rationalize it as "When this item was given to humans, the being that claimed to be God that gave it to them was actually a more advanced being of non-supernatural origin"
>>571049
>Physical evidence of his presence that wouldn't be better explained by a naturalistic process.
I am asking for a literal hypothetical example (and I am doubting one can be provided)
>Also if nothing can prove his existence, then why shouldn't we just dismiss it out of hand? Because some people feel really strongly that he exists?
No, because the issue is if he exists as some religions say, you cannot expect to test the validity through a traditional method as many people charge.
>>571067
So does the latter.
Oh but wait, I forgot, god is magic and didn't just not come from nothing he didn't come from anywhere. Despite this line of thinking being totally unprecedented throughout the universe we can through all existing metaphysics out of the window and start pulling conclusions out of our asses since we don't know what goes on outside of the universe.
>>571068
because there's no reason to even suppose a pixie
>>571069
No it doesn't. The view is that God always existed.
Physical laws don't apply to God by virtue that "He" is not bound by the laws of our universe.
>implies metaphysics don't exist in every argument
>uses metaphysics to justify their positions
Atheists, everybody.
>>571050
Waiting for a response
>>571078
>I am asking for a literal hypothetical example (and I am doubting one can be provided)
Why? That description was quite adequate. Meet that standard, and I'll be happy to admit God might exist.
>No, because the issue is if he exists as some religions say, you cannot expect to test the validity through a traditional method as many people charge.
I'm not fond of the man, but Hitchen's razor applies here: that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>>571034
Upon the same basis as Christians dismiss the existence of Wotan, Zeus, etc.
>>571070
proof:
>>>570421
your average /his/ thread.
Also the /his/ shortening sucks. I know it makes sense but I'm willing to bet at some point some tumblrwhales and their fellow whiteknight redditors are going to find out about it and are going to petition the owners to change and a whole shitstorm is going to ensue.
>>571078
>For all you know, there could be more that were undiscovered. You couldn't even prove it was the Ark of the Covenant of lore. it
This is true, but if it looks like a AOTC, smells like an AOTC, and melts faces like an AOTC, it would take an idiot not to draw the obvious conclusion.
> it could be some alien artifact for all you know.
desu aliens with technology of such advancement that it may as well be magic to all known science would probably be enough to convince me god exists. Until someone could come up with a better explanation.
>>571078
>Again, it could be some high tech technology or something, not "the Ark of the Covenant". Even if it were the Ark, I would believe an atheist is more lively to rationalize it as "When this item was given to humans, the being that claimed to be God that gave it to them was actually a more advanced being of non-supernatural origin"
I'm not sure why you consider this a salient point. You either prove your assertion, or it gets rejected. If you claim you have a million dollars, and it's relevant to me whether you have a million dollars or not, I expect you to prove it. So it likewise is with how I'm going to live my life if you expect me to follow some inane creed.
>>571087
Smh desu senpai
>>571087
It actually took me a fucking moment to realize what you were saying about /his/ sucking. Fuck you. Anyone who even thinks in this manner should end themselves. Utterly pathetic.
This should have just been a history board ;(
/hum/ when?
>>571083
>That description was quite adequate.
You did not. If I cannot animated the scenario in a movie (which I can't, since you were too vague), it is not sufficient. I am asking for an hypothetical example of physical evidence that would prove the claim.
>I'm not fond of the man, but Hitchen's razor applies here: that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
But the class of evidence you are even asking for cannot logically even be applied to an entity with God's commonly alleged characteristics even if he existed.
>>571080
Well what maintains reality when no one is looking at it? Without pixies, how will the world continue to function?
Every Atheist ITT
>>571081
>The view is that God always existed.
So why can god be uncaused, but not whatever naturalistic force that the universe sprang from?
>>571104
0/10
>>571091
>>571093
>>571095
>this level of autism
So even after I told you dumb fags that you are basically replying to /b/ tier thread, you dare to continue. Explain this autism.
Reddit and /b/ spend most of the time in petty battles between fedoras and religious nuts, go there if that's what you desire.
>>571101
>You did not. If I cannot animated the scenario in a movie (which I can't, since you were too vague), it is not sufficient. I am asking for an hypothetical example of physical evidence that would prove the claim.
I already told you: actual physical evidence. Something that cannot be explained through naturalistic forces and implies a creator? Why do I need to provide a hypothetical example? So you can whinge on and on about how atheists would just dismiss it? You know what you have to do, no either put up or shut up.
>But the class of evidence you are even asking for cannot logically even be applied to an entity with God's commonly alleged characteristics even if he existed.
That's awfully fucking convenient for their positions. "We don't need to back up our assertions, because our assertion is so grand we can't back it up." Then your assertion is so fucking grand that I'm going to dismiss it out of hand.
>not being an agnostic apatheist
It's like you can't even into logic
>>571105
Not him, but presumably because the universe does seem to follow laws/constraints, and God would be an existence that lacks constraints as an non-universal-plane existence.
>>571109
>Waaaah this board sucks >:(
>I'm gonna leave the board
>look at this shit thread over here
>I don't like the board name
>we're the ones with autism
>>571101
>But the class of evidence you are even asking for cannot logically even be applied to an entity with God's commonly alleged characteristics even if he existed
Fucking what? Not him, but if someone claims to be able to create an entire plane of existence with a mere thought, then it demands a pretty fucking large amount of proof.
If god did exist he could simply transport every nonbeliever to an alternate plane of reality where they could view whatever kind of proof that they needed to believe in higher power.
>>571109
>on 4chan
It's already autistic
>>571076
it's not the same (and that's pretty obvious, because while there's 5+ billion non-atheists in the world, there isn't 5+billion pixie believers in the world)
note, i'm not stating a particular religion's view of a God, i'm simply saying the creator of the universe
>>571117
>I'm cool because I don't care
wew
>>571072
Not to mention the religious history.
Christianity is a syncretism. If you look at history you can piece together how Christianity was created and which pre-existing religions it borrowed from. You have the logos element from the Greco-Roman circles, you have the Zoroastrian element of the battle of good vs evil, even the pre-existing Judaic religion isn't original since certain elements pre-existed, e.g. the story of Moses resembling the life of Sargon of Akkad.
It is visible to the naked eye that Christianity has grown over time, over a certain time frame. That it was pieced together out of fractions that were believed before in a completely different context.
How can anyone with a straight face base his life around something clearly made up by people?
I can get it if people like the philosophy around it, the teachings, etc. - but belief in the supernatural aspects of it? Nigger please. Especially a board dedicated to history should know better than that.
>>571118
The universe itself does, but there's nothing to say a naturalistic force beyond the universe couldn't be the cause.
That said, speculation about the origin of the universe is a pretty pointless angle to go from. Neither side can provide a verifiable explanation.
>>571102
that's a pretty lame reason to believe in a physical pixie that exists in the physical world... nothing like supposing a creator outside our field of consciousness
>>571126
>it's not the same (and that's pretty obvious, because while there's 5+ billion non-atheists in the world, there isn't 5+billion pixie believers in the world)
Argumentum ad populum.
>>571132
>physical pixie that exists in the physical world
No, no, no, it's a pixie that exists beyond our world, yet interacts with our world to ensure that it continues to function when nothing is consciously perceiving it.
>>571126
>it's not the same
Yes, it is the same because it's the same leap of faith.
Also refer to what I wrote in regards to "creator of the universe". If you got your non-intrusive first-cause type god, then feel free to believe in said god, it's merely a stand-in for what happened before the big bang. Keep it.
However, don't try to justify any sort of religious service and religious rules based on something which has absolutely no connection to any religion that exists on Earth. Because as soon as you do that you'll have to justify why you believe in that particular religion and that's where you're going to fail.
Also you might want to look at >>571129.
>>570964
I don't think you understand how burden of proof works.
If I claim your face is a basketball, and you say "No, it isn't." the burden is SOLELY on me to prove my claim.
If I can provide no evidence, you are not required to provide any. My claim is assumed false.
If you fail to prove evidence, that doesn't man your face "might" be a basketball, and that we "just don't know.
Agnostics are indecisive faggots who fear offending people.
>>571054
Yes. They're equally likely.
There are known cases of people making up religions of whole cloth.
>>571080
Or a god of any sort. Unless you're profoundly ignorant about the world, and unable to accept a lack of knowledge, and feel the need to plug the gap with superstition.
>>571126
>It's somehow more rational because it's more popular
That's very bad logic.
There actually are millions of people out there in Africa that believe superstitious nonsense like raping virgins to cure AIDS. Sometime ago there was even many people in Europe that believed this.
The fact is most people are retards and the fact that lots of them believe something does not make it true. Contrary to what the meme magic meme would have you believe.
>>571113
If you can't even provide a single example, you are being disingenuous. You can just say "there is no such possible evidence". If you can't even imagine such an example, then there is nothing in the realm of imagination that once seen would make you say "...there really isn't a naturalistic explanation".
>That's awfully fucking convenient for their positions.
No, all it does is say that you cannot expect a traditional empirical approach. But you need more than that to believe or say that (a certain) God does exist.
>>571144
I gave you a good example earlier and you just quit replying to me.
>>571129
>It is visible to the naked eye that Christianity has grown over time, over a certain time frame.
The worst part is, anybody who studies ANY theology know WHEN AND WHERE mortal men decided on their doctrine, who spoke against it, their names, and which bits people fucking died believing before it was thrown out.
In some circles, damning them to hell for having been wrong. Abrahamic religions can be proven wrong by pointing to the contradictions in their own history.
Religious individuals, however, tend to explain it all away.
>>571144
>If you can't even provide a single example, you are being disingenuous. You can just say "there is no such possible evidence". If you can't even imagine such an example, then there is nothing in the realm of imagination that once seen would make you say "...there really isn't a naturalistic explanation".
You do realize how fucking asinine it is to ask someone who exists in a physical, causal universe of set laws, and is a product of it to imagine something that truly doesn't fit within those physical, causal properties or set laws in a way that doesn't imply that the original understanding was flawed, right?
>No, all it does is say that you cannot expect a traditional empirical approach.
So, does that mean that as long as I make sure my claims are totally untestable, you'll regard them as valid? Does that mean Freud's "not even wrong" claims are equally valid?
>But you need more than that to believe or say that (a certain) God does exist.
I would say your standard calls for less than that, not more.
>>570998
I never understand this logic, and wish it could be better explained, but I guess it comes from a point without explanation.
>Do you believe in god?
Do I believe in god, what? That's not even a complete sentence and certain people base their entire lives upon it. That's like me asking:
>Do you believe in me?
It's like the old, "I accidently a whole coke bottle". Like the what doesn't matter.
>>571164
How is that not a complete sentence? It has all of the elements of a sentence. It's a simple yes or no answer.
>>571146
>I gave you a good example earlier and you just quit replying to me
I have replied properly while you have kept sidestepping my question. You only wrote "actual physical evidence. Something that cannot be explained through naturalistic forces and implies a creator" and "Physical evidence of his presence that wouldn't be better explained by a naturalistic process." In both cases, I asked you to actually give me an example, not a vague statement that cannot be imagined due to lack of detail. You have not and are still refusing to do so. This makes me believe that you are just saying words, but cannot actually imagine a scenario even hypothetically where your conditions would apply. That is why I am calling you disingenuous, because from your responses, it seems that you cannot imagine such a scenario, yet you are still alleging that such a scenario is in the realm of possibilities - but since you can't imagine it, you don't actually believe such evidence is theoretically possible, and you refuse to acknowledge as such.
>>571175
Not him, but if god existed he would have no problem providing adequate evidence if he felt like doing so. He is all knowing and all powerful, after all.
>>571175
So many people are calling you an idiot you're loosing track of who is who. My example was the Ark of the Covenant, or something equally inexplicable.
There you have it, a concrete, easily imaginable example, that I say as an atheist would convince me of god's existence. What are you continuing argue for?
>>571164
How about, do you currently believe in some form of supernatural deity?
Followed up with, do you think that the existence of a supernatural deity is impossible.
>>571153
>You do realize how fucking asinine it is to ask someone who exists in a physical, causal universe of set laws, and is a product of it to imagine something that truly doesn't fit within those physical, causal properties or set laws in a way that doesn't imply that the original understanding was flawed, right?
Then why do you ask for evidence as if the entity "exists in a physical, causal universe of set laws" as well? I'm not saying you need to beleive in the thing, but clearly if such a thing even existed, you can't expect the same sort of proof as other things that exist " in a physical, causal universe of set laws"
"does that mean that as long as I make sure my claims are totally untestable, you'll regard them as valid?"
That is not what I said.
>I would say your standard calls for less than that, not more.
Rephrase this. I don't understand your meaning.
>>571026
>>571144
Multiple, clearly visible natural locations across the most populous regions of the world containing a message that could be deciphered regardless of language barriers. Kinda like the Pioneer plaque.
>>571175
Wrong guy, I think he's the Ark of the Covenant fellow, and of course I don't believe such evidence is possible, because I don't believe in the supernatural.
But asking for an example of something that doesn't fit within our universe's laws in a way that doesn't imply that our conception of its laws are wrong from someone who is a product of these laws is absurd because I am myself limited by these laws.
The only person here being disingenuous is yourself, because you're doing it simply to sidestep the fact that you want to be able to assert something without evidence; to grant your particular pet idea special exemption from the same standard every other idea has to live up to, but you're not considering the implications. Do my assertions now gain special exemption from proof if make them grand enough?
>>571192
>That is not what I said.
It's exactly what you said. Because religions make such grand claims, that are "not even wrong" that they get exemption from burden of proof. Fine, prove God in a different way if you think you have one that's valid.
>Rephrase this. I don't understand your meaning.
I'm saying you'd have to dumb down your standards to accept the existence of God.
Humanities were a mistake
>>571181
That is true, but besides the point. And if he did, presumably it could prove itself beyond simply empirical methods.
>>571183
How would you know it is the arc of lore, and even then, why would you believe it is God and not something else that provided it? Or even it if is "Yahwah", what's to say he was actually just one of many gods, but he is lying and claiming to be the only one and the one that made the universe?
Would these issues not pop into your mind at all if news of such an arc's discovery occurred?
>>571213
So, why should we care about assertions of God is no proof can be made? Why shouldn't we dismiss them out of hand? You haven't actually answered that.
>>570964
thats why im an agnostic atheist
i am agnostic because god's existence is undoubtably unknowable
however it is not the least bit contradictory to use logical premises to deduce that god's existence is rather unlikely
read yourself some david hume
>>571213
I think you're assuming I'm much more of a postivist than I am.
Even if it turned out that it was really an alien artifact, until any science behind it could be explained, I would be satisfied with god as an explanation as for all I or anyone else knows such advanced technology would be totally indistinguishable from the supernatural.
>Or even it if is "Yahwah", what's to say he was actually just one of many gods, but he is lying and claiming to be the only one and the one that made the universe?
Why would it matter? I'm not a theist anyway and this is a hypothetical scenario in extraordinary circumstances, what are you hoping to get out of a hypothetical scenario within a hypothetical scenario?
>>570991
your lack of general scientific knowledge is astounding. i mean the example for atheistic, scientific input isnt even scientific
i mean, feynman, hawking, it takes but a glance to note that secularists, agnostics, and atheists are who actually populate the vast majority of the scientific community
>>570998
no, you "subhuman retard", learn some philosophy and understand that some questions are unknowable whether you like it or not
btw im an atheist
>>571194
People in real life already claim that sort of things as proof of aliens. It clearly doesn't show if God exists or not.
>>571196
>But asking for an example of something that doesn't fit within our universe's laws in a way that doesn't imply that our conception of its laws are wrong from someone who is a product of these laws is absurd because I am myself limited by these laws.
So you do admit a traditional empirical proof indeed should not be expected if such an entity even existed?
>The only person here being disingenuous is yourself, because you're doing it simply to sidestep the fact that you want to be able to assert something without evidence; to grant your particular pet idea special exemption from the same standard every other idea has to live up to
You are blatantly putting words in my mouth now. All I have been attempting to show is that the claim that some atheist make that they need empirical evidence for God is a ridiculous thing to ask for, since there is no such empirical evidence possible. However, as you conveniently just choose ignore in my post here >>571144, I said that, it being said that a traditional empirical approach could not be expected to work if God did exist, that is not sufficient to say if there is a God or not, or what God(s) exist.
I don't know if you forgot or misunderstood that post, or if you were being disingenuous and choose to ignore the point I was arguing about and overextend yourself claiming that by saying "no traditional empirical proof should be expected" that that means you need to believe in God.
>>571240
If you're talking about things like Nazca lines and crop circles the kind of people who claim it's aliens are taking the same leap of faith as people who would claim it's supernatural.
>>571201
>It's exactly what you said.
When did I claim that "as long as a claim is untestable, it is valid"? Go on. Show me where I suggested that something being untestable means it is true. Show me where.
>>571216
I think at one point I suggest such a thing as you said, but I retract that. My only point is just that if such a thing existed, you should not expect a traditional empirical proof of it.
>>571227
Okay, I see. Thank you for taking the time to answer. I appreciate it.
>>571024
>Agnosticism and anti-theism are both subsets of atheism.
They're not. Due to the etymology of that particular philosophical position:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
>Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge")
Atheism is an ABSOLUTE, definitive term of (and for) disbelief in a Deity. An agnostic claims, quite simply, that he or she doesn't know.
>>571248
It's the implications of your stance. You claim that God cannot be proven in traditional means, so the claim is valid without proof. The implication is that if a claim cannot be proven.
>>571270
>if a claim cannot be proven, it is valid without proof.
>>571267
Atheism isn't necessarily absolute, as it simply means anything other than theism. Including saying you don't know, as for all intents and purposes this is indistinguishable from a negative assumption.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism
>>571191
See, the second question makes sense because asking, "Do you believe in god?", is a loaded question, implying it does and you're in possible denial. Asking if I think a god could have been, does, or may exist in the future is a real question. One to be clarified with further questions like, "where would these beings exist?", which is usually given the response, everywhere. So, we're inside of god right now? Doesn't that mean god is just another word for the omniverse?
>>571247
>If you're talking about things like Nazca lines and crop circles the kind of people who claim it's aliens are taking the same leap of faith as people who would claim it's supernatural.
And are generally considered to be nuttier than squirrel-shit.
which, incidentally, is what most atheists look on the frothing bible-bashers as too. When you're so utterly monomanical in your belief in something that has absolutely no evidence, you're pretty much the same as a the loons claiming that the pyramids are landing platforms for spaceships from the planet Zblorg.
>>571240
>I said that, it being said that a traditional empirical approach could not be expected to work if God did exist, that is not sufficient to say if there is a God or not, or what God(s) exist.
Then if God cannot be asserted to exist, I can safely reject such assertions? Thanks.
>>571123
>If god did exist he could simply transport every nonbeliever to an alternate plane of reality where they could view whatever kind of proof that they needed to believe in higher power.
If you're talking abut the abrahamic God, why would he do that when it goes against literally everything we know about his teachings and his motives for creating us?
>>571286
If you want to
Doesn't mean you're right, though
>>571142
>I don't think you understand how burden of proof works.
What is the dictionary?
burden of proof
phrase of burden
1.
the obligation to prove one's assertion.
>>571401
>1. the obligation to prove one's assertion.
the assertion that a god exists?
yes, that is the Burden of Proof, As you quoted from the dictionary.
I know your brains are a bit topsy-turvy what with being filled with mountains of nonsense about talking snakes and people who hear voices in their head and then mangle their children's genitals, and all that, but surely its not THAT difficult to work out...
you say "there is a magical being who created the world.". the atheist meanwhile, is saying "well, there's no evidence for your claim. I don't believe that". this is not an assertion. it is a statement of fact: there is no evidence for that. we hardly need to "assert" anything there. it is you who's claiming that the invisible pink unicorn is out there shitting rainbows and making universes with a wave of the hand.
>>571452
>the assertion that a god exists?
Not that poster but burden of proof is on anyone who makes the positive claim.
If you promote a belief a metaphysical worldview that has some manner of theism involved, you must defend it.
If you promote a belief a metaphysical worldview that does not have some manner of theism involved, you must defend it.
>>571034
The logical absolute of the excluded middle.
>>571479
Atheism isn't a positive claim. It's a rejection of a positive claim.
>>571489
Yes, but the moment you promote a metaphysical worldview that does not have some manner of theism involved, you must defend that worldview.
Pretty simplistic stuff, man.
I swear to God, our civilization will be in decline until at least an introductory class in formal logic is mandatory for everyone and you don't get to be a person until you pass it.
The burden of proof for a positive claim, for instance "There is a God", is on the person making the claim. There is no burden on others to prove their isn't; indeed the logical default is that the claim is baseless until sufficient evidence is given to prove. So ANYthing you claim to be true is assumed to be false until you can prove it.
This is why in any legal system worth a damn, the burden is on the Prosecution to first show that a crime has been committed, and then to prove that you were the one who did it. They are making the positive claim, "A crime has been committed", and then further claiming "And anon did it with the lead pipe in the drawing room!". That is why the presumption of innocence exists.
So no, there is no burden of proof on the Atheist. His is indeed the logical position, as no conclusive evidence has yet been shown that God exists. Agnostics are just wishy-washy fence-sitters who don't understand basic reasoning.
>>571489
you are just not getting it. Say god exists requires defense. Saying god does't exist requires defense.
>>571498
Until an atheist defends his worldview as true, thus making the positive claim.
>>571495
I don't promote shit for metaphysics. I just reject your metaphysical assertion.
>>571026
>why would people need proof that something exists?
Yeah anon, why would they need that? Such unreasonable people.
>>571044
He just needs to come down from wherever he's hiding and say hello, it wasnt so weird in the old testament, why would it be now?
>>571512
Atheists don't defend their worldview as true because it's a negative claim, you can't prove a negative. They simply reject every positive claim.
>>571498
there is no middle ground. Either there is or there isn't a god. Making a claim either way defies basic reasoning. Just because no religion around today has an accurate depiction of god doesn't mean there isn't one out there.
I swear most people who adamantly reject god are actually rejecting religion.
>>571521
Atheists aren't necessarily making a claim, they're rejecting a claim.
>>571062
>Dan Carlin
Did you mean George Carlin?
>>571050
Agnosticism is not a claim, its a position. The same with atheism, it cannot be proven true or false
>>570968
Bait harder Desu sempai
>>571524
saying that there is no god is a much a claim as saying that there is.
Saying "The door is closed" is just as much as much of statement as "The door is open"
>>571539
>Saying I don't have a belief in a God/s is not the same as claiming there is a God/s.
FTFY
>>571513
>I don't have a worldview, I just reject others'
I usually find this very weak, where the worldview is implicit or not fully thought out rather than not actually being there.
>>571520
>Atheists don't defend their worldview as true because it's a negative claim, you can't prove a negative. They simply reject every positive claim.
Anon, what. You can't think of ANY person arguing for worldviews that involve atheism? there is not a single person arguing for materialism nor a reason to argue for it? You're being absurd. This is more than theism/atheism, this is the worldviews they are attached to.
Given how theism/atheism is more than simplistic single beliefs but usually influence major parts of their worldviews both implicitly and explicitly there are positive claims that do end up coming up on both sides.
And obvious example would be divine conservation v. existential inertia.
>>571539
That's not the claim of an atheist. Atheists claim to lack any belief in a God. Those are two vastly different claims
>>571539
>saying that there is no god is a much a claim as saying that there is.
Indeed, but not believing in God most certainly is not. "I believe there is a God" is a claim, "I do not believe you" is a rejection of that claim.
>>571539
I'm getting the feeling you don't understand your own language
you do know what positive is, right? That's the claim "there is a god". That's a positive claim. You have to prove that.
Everyone else can just sit quietly and say nothing. They are making no claims, they have nothing to prove. It's up to you. If you can't prove there is a God, then there is no reason for the rest to assume there is, and no need for them to prove there isn't. It is not two opposing sides, anon. It is one person coming out of a crowd of silent people to say "THIS IS". It's his show. Prove it or get back in line.
>>571551
>I usually find this very weak, where the worldview is implicit or not fully thought out rather than not actually being there.
Oh no, I never claimed I don't have a world view. I just don't promote a positive claim about the universe. I simply reject the positive claims of others on the grounds of their blatant absurdity.
>>570968
Why do faggots always misinterpret what agnostic means?
It means the belief (emphasis on belief) that god is unknowable. The neutral implication is not that you aren't sure, it's that you can't know, therefore you don't know. You could also believe god is unknowable, but also believe in god, or believe the concept of god would be inherently unknowable (often referred to as unfalsifiable), and you don't believe such a thing exists.
It literally means without knowledge.
>>571550
except that it is. There is no happy in between. Here is the fact of the matter. We are all blind and can't tell if the light is on or off and there is not one single person on this earth that can say anything. Anyone who claims to know for sure is either misguided or selling something.
>>571551
If they were discussing other world views, they would be discussing those world views, you fucking schmuck. But this is a discussion about atheism, which is very simply a lack of belief in God. If they were to assert Feuerbach's brand of humanism, then they would be asserting a claim, but they are not doing that.
>>571562
Because they read half of a wiki article and slip into their trench coats and fedoras to come post on this shit board
>>571563
I think a better analogy would be that the atheist doesn't claim to know if there is a light or not, while others claim the light is off or on according to their own preferences.
>>571572
Also these analogies are stupid, and I'm talking about the majority of atheists who are agnostic towards the existence of deities.
>>571560
>I just don't promote a positive claim about the universe.
So you have a view but keep it to yourself. Alright, then that doesn't fall into what I said originally then. Thank you for your time.
>>571565
You responded to my comment which explicitly mentions worldviews themselves here >>571512 and your last post you me here >>571520 had you explicitly mentioning worldviews.
Don't pretend we weren't talking about this subject just because you realize you're wrong.
>>571529
Rude. I'm being fair here.
A randomly selected group of theists of type A are to pray for a randomly selected set of patients, a. The same is true for other groups of theists, and a control group. The patients do not know if they are being prayed for or if they are in the control group, they wouldn't know the religions that could be praying for them, the medical professionals wouldn't know, the prayers would never meet the patients or even be within X miles of them, etc. until all conditions are controlled. If any one group of patients has a higher recovery rate than the others or the control group, and this effect is statistically significant, repeatable and independently reproduceable, that would be evidence for a specific flavor of theism. Now, if (when) their failed to be a repeatable significant difference, theists would then simply claim that their deity does not appreciate being tested, and thus did not answer the prayers of anyone involved. Thus, the deity grants or removes medical assistance based on how people would percieve them, in which case they are less moral than any doctor and not worth worshipping in the first place.
>>571583
>Don't pretend we weren't talking about this subject just because you realize you're wrong.
What the fuck are you even talking about? I'm saying your point about worldviews is irrelevant to this fucking thread because the sole topic of discussion here is atheism, which is a rejection of positive assertions about the world, not a worldview.
>>571588
as
>>571604
pointed out you have strayed off into some strange tangent. I'm not sure if this is because you're trying to do an end-run around the logical problem here and you really don't like atheists, or if you're just trying to forward some point you're fond of and this seemed like a good thread to piggyback it on
You're fairly polite, but you're wrong. Rejection of a positive claim that lacks evidence is not another kind of positive claim that requires evidence.
>>571604
>You made a claim about atheism/theism
>I chimed in about applying that distinction to discussion of worldviews themselves
>You say >>571520
>I tell you why that's wrong
>You're not upset that we're talking about worldviews as a whole and saying its irrelevant
You responded to me chiming in with the additional point of discussion of worldviews as a whole. If you didn't want to discuss it, that's fine, but if you're going to respond to my posts about that topic then the discussion we're having between us is on that topic.
You can stop now if you don't like it but I still hold >>571520 is wrong for reasons mentioned >>571551
Atheists - you claim that yours is the position that doesn't have the burden of proof ("we don't believe in a God"), but then what about your position on existence itself?
Non-existence is the more logical result given our scientific understanding of creation, yet here we are. How do you refute the point that something exists, therefore it must've come from somewhere? In this instance, the burden of proof lies on you.
>>571615
>I tell you why that's wrong
No you fucking didn't. You pointed out that there are worldviews that are atheistic. That doesn't change the fact that atheism itself is not a worldview, but a rejection of a worldview.
And no, I'm not fucking wrong. You cannot defend a negative claim, which atheism is (no, atheism is not inherently tied to materialism, or egoism, or humanism, or what have you, though those are all atheistic ideologies), get this through your fucking thick-ass skull.
>>571618
>something exists
>therefore it must have come from somewhere
you missed a few steps in your syllogism
>>571618
The logical thing is to make no assertion about the origin of existence.
>>571618
>How do you refute the point that something exists, therefore it must've come from somewhere?
How do you prove it came from your god? Why do theists always strawman atheists think nothing exploded into everything.
>>571067
>doesn't understand the physical meaning of "nothing"
>doesn't know why inflationary big bang is widely accepted in academia
>tries to set up strawmen against physics and not atheism
Personally I'm agnostic but this is one of the more pathetic arguments coming from theists.
>>571618
The scientific method is testing and observation of the universe.
We observe existence, the same as we observe physics, biology and chemistry.
>>571648
I never said that. I just said that the burden of proof that something didn't create this world falls on atheists
>>571661
>this world
You mean this universe?
Science has a sound theory for how earth and the moon were created. The creation of the universe is just a mathematical model that fits best.
>>571668
>You mean this universe?
Obviously.
>>571668
The model fit well enough to form a hypothesis with testable predictions that were eventually confirmed (cosmic microwave background radiation.) That is pretty sound.
>>571661
Atheists don't say something, which could be a completely impersonal, non-intelligent phenomenon, like the big bang, didn't create the universe. They say god didn't create the universe. God is not synonymous with phenomenon that created universe.
>>571609
I wrapped up the confusion here >>571615
>I'm not sure if this is because you're trying to do an end-run around the logical problem here and you really don't like atheists, or if you're just trying to forward some point you're fond of and this seemed like a good thread to piggyback it on
For me, I have issue that the discussion is JUST theist/atheist (I have the same problem in conflicting theist/theist arguments) as that is hilariously, hilariously vague. That discussion involves many discussions of proving metaphysical systems to be the case but with little work to explain the worldviews as a whole which simply leads to confusion and not much productivity. I think it's more efficient to explain each other's worldviews to one another (to some degree) so we can understand what major claims the person has and precisely what that means. I find it horrible that people on either side of the debate don't bother to say what they mean by god when stating they do or don't believe in such a thing. The lack of clarity is sickening.
>Rejection of a positive claim that lacks evidence is not another kind of positive claim that requires evidence.
Agreed, but as I said before is about worldviews themselves, that can run into multiple other views down the line. By rejecting (or simply not believing in) gods, what do you mean you do not believe to be there?
I'm keenly interested in discussing worldviews in depth so we can understand the views of the people around us rather than if we believe in something called a "god" or not, despite the lack of clarity on what that is called.
>>571683
>God is not synonymous with phenomenon that created universe.
It might as well be.
>>570964
yes. it does.
But atheists aren't making any claim.
Atheists are people who do not claim god exists. There is no burden of proof for not making any claim.
your agnosticism is actually making a claim: that there is a possibility of a thing being real.
Atheism is a null hypothesis. There's nothing to actually prove.
>>571690
No, it really might as well not be. All you're doing is claiming the big bang, or whatever creation event, was god. God has a fairly specific meaning and many many implications. Reducing god to creation phenomenon is removing the part the separates god from a phenomenon.
>>571693
The agnostic claim is that god is unknowable.
If an agnostic were presented with miracles and proof of god, an agnostic would claim they must be the work of man or have some other explanation besides god, because god is unknowable, and anything that would lead to knowing god must be false.
>>571625
>no, atheism is not inherently tied to...
Obviously. I am making a claim about worldviews themselves in line with my logic originally posted >>571479
You seem focused on saying I'm wrong about needing to prove atheism (in itself) as an affirmative, which I haven't argued at all, but rather originally chimed in to your point saying that you are right until the atheist defends his worldview as true, thus making the positive claim rather than simply lacking a belief. At that point the atheist must defend parts of his worldview while still evading theism. And as I've said, this gets us into explaining things and reality itself, the most common of which being the discussion of Existential Inertia v. Divine Conservation.
This is not "prove God doesn't exist", this is "explain your worldview without having divinity in it".
>That doesn't change the fact that atheism itself is not a worldview, but a rejection of a worldview.
Theism is itself not a worldview but takes part in a collection of different worldviews, just as atheism does.
I chimed in about worldviews, you began discussing worldviews with me and then got upset that we were discussing worldviews. I did not ask you to respond to me.
>>571698
I love it when people make the argument that God is unknowable. I just ask "how do you know that?" and they skip over it or begin to trip over themselves. It's clear they simply want to ignore discussion.
>>571707
oh suddenly you're in FAVOR of people needing to back up their claims
>>570968
>believes nor disbeliefs
Disbelief is the lack of belief.
>>570964
This is something someone that false-flags apologists would say. I sincerely hope you don't actually think that.
>>571240
>People in real life already claim that sort of things as proof of aliens. It clearly doesn't show if God exists or not.
These sort of things don't exist in real life. Ancient Aliens hing entirely on ancient man-made structures and go "it was technologically impossible for humans back then", even though it usually wasn't.
I am talking about the Creation being drawn in comic form on the moon visible to the naked eye from Earth, the human genome sounding like "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news’” when placed on a sound synthesizer with blueprints discovered on Mars surface, or every major mountain range containing a representation of the Ten Commandments. Things that couldn't possibly be made by humans.
Agnostics are fucking pussies and I'd punch you if you were one. Just saying.
This thread is triggering me
>mfw reading this thread as an ignostic
Atheism is the null hypothesis.
Get fucked OP.
>>570964
>retard here
FTFY. I'm an atheist because I acknowledge that I don't have faith in a god or gods. It's not because I claim with certainty that god can't possibly exists. Knowledge does not enter into it, only faith does.
>>572464
why?
because agnosticism is clearly the only rational opinion to have?
>>571081
Time is a property of the universe. Therefore, the universe has always existed.
>>571046
>*just happens* to look exactly like us, having made us "in his image"
Why doesn't anyone understand Imagio Dei properly?
It simply means you are what sci-fi mistakenly calls "sentient", and philosophy calls "sapient".
>>572621
>Atheism is the null hypothesis.
Incorrect.
Maybe pick up a dictionary once in your life.
>>572631
You have faith in the idea that God DOESN'T exist.
Why do atheists think that "faith" is bad?
Everyone has faith.
When you go to the hospital, you have faith they know what they're doing.
When you go to the dentist, you have faith that he knows what he's doing.
When you get into your car, you have faith that the car will function as intended.
When you get into a plane, you have faith that it will bring you where you intend to go.
Christians have reasonable faith, because it is backed up by theological, philosophical, historical and scientific arguments.
Atheists have BLIND faith. They BLINDLY believe there is no creator, without any evidence to support that claim.
>>572665
>Atheists have BLIND faith. They BLINDLY believe there is no creator, without any evidence to support that claim.
Except that's wrong and you're retarded. I don't have faith in god not existing, I just don't think that's a likely scenario given the philosophical and scientific implications.
Meanwhile, Christians have unreasonable faith based on a book full of contradictions. Whether god exists or not, Christians - at least the vast majority of them - are wrong.
>>572665
>Why do atheists think that "faith" is bad?
Enlightenment legacy. It's not only faith, but any sort of spirit.
>>572686
>book full of contradictions
Nice bait.
2/10 almost thought you were serious.
>>572665
Learn the difference between a positive and negative epistemic or metaphysical claim.
Or bait harder, Desu sempai
>>570964
I don't believe there is a god because it is a small, nonsensical, emotional human explanation for the grandest mystery of them all.
And it still doesn't explain what created God.
If any sapient entity created our universe I'd place my bets on a team of scientists creating universes as some kind of experiment
>>572726
What is even happening anymore?
>>572743
C.S. Lewis already debunked your argument.
Read "Mere Christianity" or watch the CSLewisDoodles channel on YouTube.
>what created God
Everything comes from something. Every effect has a cause. This is a law of logic and a fact of science. Christians believe that God created the universe and everything in it. God is the cause of everything that exists. But, doesn't God also need a cause? What caused God to come into existence? Who created God? These questions are often used by critics in an attempt to discredit the idea that God created the universe. If God is the cause of the universe, then what is the cause that resulted in God?
The problem with this argument is that it is built on a faulty assumption. It is not true that everything has a cause. From nothing, nothing comes. If there was ever a time when nothing existed, nothing would have ever come into existence. There had to be an uncaused cause that caused everything else to come into existence. You can't go from absolutely nothing to something, so there must have always been a something. That something, or more accurately, someone, is God.
God is the uncaused cause that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it (Genesis 1:1). The question "Who created God?" is invalid at its core because it rests on the faulty assumption that God is subject to the laws of the universe that He created. Yes, now, everything has a cause. Yes, now, something cannot come from nothing. But, without the first uncaused cause, nothing else would exist. God is the One who set everything into motion, including the logical and scientific fact that every effect has a cause.
>>572747
The "Who created God?" question is deceiving because it is based on the false assumption that God came from somewhere. If God was created, then He is not the sovereign, eternal, infinite, and all-powerful God who is described in the Bible. That is the true reality behind the question. It is an attack on the Christian faith's understanding of God. But, the question/attack is invalid at its very core. God as the Creator is not bound by the laws of what He has created. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists, and always has, and always will.
>>572743
retard alert.
>thinks God is bound by the laws of the universe that He made
this is why we don't take atheists seriously.
>>572747
>Everything comes from something. Every effect has a cause. This is a law of logic and a fact of science.
>what is the induction fallacy
Every single time
>>572751
Then god is an incomprehensible unknowable entity not worth thinking about.
And he definitely wouldn't care whether or not you masturbate
>>572754
Name me one thing that comes from nothing.
>>572758
That has nothing to do with the induction fallacy.
>>572757
Human history proves you wrong.
Atheism is illogical because it implies that we have been wrong for thousands of years.
It implies that mankind was suffering from a mass delusion, and that only in the 19th century did we "know better".
This is why atheists have such a cocky attitude, they suffer from a superiority complex.
They want to escape accountability and the idea that their actions have consequences. So they simply shout "God doesn't exist!" in a piss-poor attempt to reject thousands of years of theology, philosophy and actual supernatural events.
Atheism is a cancer that turns people into degenerate, nihilist savages.
>French Revolution
>Bolshevik Revolution
When you con yourself into thinking you're nothing but an animal, you start acting like an animal.
The worst part is that these materialists, naturalists, humanists and pythagoreans don't even know they are being used by occult societies to further a satanic agenda.
Atheists are nothing but useful idiots. Satan's chess pieces in the conflict against truth.
>>570968
>Agnostic: Maybe or I will neither confirm nor deny
So I ask the agnostic: Do you believe that the total number of grains of sand on Earth is even?
"Maybe or I will neither confirm nor deny."
Do you believe the total number of grains of sand on the Earth is odd?
"Maybe or I will neither confirm nor deny."
Ah, then we have come to the root of the problem. Confusion arises because of the implicature of a set phrase: "I don't believe X". Colloquially, if I say "I don't believe it will rain tomorrow" I am actually expressing a belief - the belief that it WILL NOT rain tomorrow. I'm not usually outlining some negative absence of belief that it will rain tomorrow, some agnosticism concerning the matter. So we rephrase, and ask the agnostic:
Is it true to say that you believe the total number of grains of sand on Earth is even?
"No."
Is it, therefore, true to say that you believe the total number is odd?
"No."
And so we ask the agnostic: Is it true to say that you believe at least one god exists?
"No."
And there we have it. We can add that it is, presumably, not true to say that the agnostic believes no gods exist, of course. But the important part has already been taken care of.
>>572778
Kill yourself
>>572778
>Christianity is illogical because it implies that the Polytheists have been wrong for thousands of years.
This is what you sound like
>>572785
Stay mad.
>>572778
All religions are illogical because they imply that the vast majority of people have always been and still are wrong.
Reminder that deities are a man-made concept and if Greek Pagans were as powerful and indoctrinating as the Christians were, you would all be arguing if Zeus and company were real or not.
>>572786
To the contrary, it proves Christianity correct.
What used to be a blur of superstition became cleared up with monotheism.
The various pagan 'gods' were the fallen angels/nephilim described in the Bible.
Pagan cultures speak of a creator and an adversary, just as the Bible does. Satan goes by many names such as Baal, Molech, Prometheus, Belzebub, Kronos, Saturn, etc.
God is known as Logos, Adonai, Jehovah, etc.
Over 200 ancient global flood stories, all describe a similar catastrophical event as depicted in the Bible. The ancient Chinese even mention 8 people surviving the flood.
They speak of a flood, creation of the world, demons/unclean spirits and good spirits, etc.
>>572804
>it's a man-made concept because i say so
Denial and cognitive dissonance.
>>570964
>frameworks of philosophy are all absolutely right like religious claim god is
Nice try, retard. I'll give you points for thinking of something slightly less retarded than the other things. Maybe one day you'll know what truth is.
>>572804
Some skeptics resort to the accusation that God is imaginary. In other words, they would argue God is simply a creation of our own imagination rather than a real Being. Entire websites like godisimaginary.com exist solely to advance the idea that God is a human creation rather than humans as a creation of God.
However, the logic of those who claim God is imaginary is limited and flawed. First, the only completely accurate way to claim God is imaginary would be to know for certain that God does not exist. Logically, humans are limited beings and do not and cannot know all things. Therefore, humans cannot know for certain whether God is imaginary. At best, a person can claim God might be imaginary and argue reasons why such a claim is possible.
Second, to claim God is imaginary requires an alternative sufficient claim to explain the known universe and all created things. In other words, if God did not create the universe and everything in it, who or what did? The universe is eternal, it is created, or it is an illusion. If the universe is not an illusion and it is not eternal, then the only other option is that it has been created. This Creator or First Cause is what Christians call God.
Third, to claim God is imaginary is to dismiss the many claims regarding God and the supernatural in this world. While there are certainly many inaccurate claims regarding God and the supernatural, the evidence leans toward a universe in which miracles can and do happen. If miracles have happened, then the existence of God is possible. Why? The supernatural cannot take place without some kind of supernatural power or supernatural Being.
>>572812
Fourth, to claim God is imaginary overlooks the vast evidence regarding the complexity of design in the universe. From the information "coded" within the human cell to the vast complexity of the known universe, there is an amazing level of intelligence within the design of the universe that at least points to the existence of some type of Designer.
Fifth, the universal sense of morality points toward the likely existence of a moral God. While humans differ regarding certain rights and wrongs, all humans live by certain moral standards. This internal sense of right and wrong points toward an ultimate maker of right and wrong that again suggests an ultimate being or ultimate moral lawmaker we know as God.
To argue God is imaginary assumes far too much wisdom and dismisses many lines of evidence that support the existence of an ultimate Creator, Designer, Moral Lawgiver, and Supernatural Being in the universe. Those who genuinely consider the facts will at least be open to a Creator God and consider who this Creator is, opening discussion regarding the view of the God of the Bible and His Son, Jesus Christ.
I see one side (Christians) making good arguments and presenting their side.
I see the other side (atheists) just shitposting, using logical fallacies or simply ignoring the arguments given.
I come to the conclusion that atheism is a mental illness. It's a cop-out to escape responsibility and accountability.
>>572805
The exact same argument could be used to "prove" that literally any other religion is correct. You're just picking between different lies because you refuse to see the truth.
>>572823
this.
christians win again
/thread
>>571029
>letting my women cuckhold me
>YES
REMINDER
Stirner was a cuckhold.
>>570964
'no'
choosing to not believe in something does not require an alternative theory to be put forward. you just dont believe it
making claims that something is fact however DOES require you to back up your claims
>>571062
Monty Python is funny.
>>572805
>To the contrary, it proves atheism correct.
>What used to be a blur of superstition became cleared up with skepticism.
>The 'god' of the Bible were the collective wishes and desires by fallible men.
>Abrahmic cultures speak of narratives, just we've always structured our lives. Knowing this gave us powers over them
>God is known as our own desired self-image
>Over 200 ancient global flood stories, all describe a similar catastrophical event as depicted in the Bible. This exposes our minds as pattern seekers, even if this doesn't need to be a pattern.
>They speak of a flood, creation of the world, demons/unclean spirits and good spirits, etc., even if the dots we 'connect' may be highly dubious, which gives us more knowledge about ourselves and how elaborate the ways we fool ourselves are
See? I can play this game just as well
>>572833
>99.9% of man is dumb
>i know better, im super smart because i say so
>>571618
I've masturbated and the world is my sperm. Sorry it's so fucked up.
>>572839
>>100% of people who lived before the birth of Jesus are worthy of eternal punishment
>>i know better, im blessd by jaysus
>>572825
There are 10 people.
9 of those people speak of an event that happened (flood, creation, entities)
The 1 guy says the event never happened.
What's more likely?
>>572812
If you don't know whether he's imaginary or not, then you don't know if he's real, either.
>>572842
All non-arguments. Handwaving, misrepresentation, dubious 'evidence' that never surpasses the level of hearsay, etc., etc.
>>572758
There are several sub atomic particles that form out of vacuum alone, they have very short lifetime but they can be caught with spectrometers.
>>572848
you are so fucking dumb, lmao
go and ask 9 out of 10 suicidal people, they say its best you should off yourself
>>572856
Cognitive dissonance in action.
I knew you wouldn't address the arguments, just conveniently ignore them and claim bs.
>>572806
Not him, but you're better off pointing out that all concepts are man-made.
>>572786
Not really. They have been right about the existence of the transcendent, they just had different ideas of it. Atheists deny the existence of the transcendent at all because they can't perceive it with scientific positivism.
Christians are people who say that tomato soup is objectively the best, while other faiths say that different soups are better, and that you should probably decide it yourself. Atheists are people who claim that no such thing as a soup exists, because you can't eat it with a fork.
>>572797
>All religions are illogical because they imply that the vast majority of people have always been and still are wrong.
Yes, because all religions are Abrahamic and claim that all other religions are false. In fact, scratch the first part, because there are Abrahamic religions that are not exclusivist.
>>572848
Irrelevant. Tens of thousands of people have vivid memories of past lives, alien abductions, and seeing Big Foot and Elvis. Does that make it true?
>>572778
>>French Revolution
>>Bolshevik Revolution
>killed priests
>killed kings
>killed rich people
>bad
They've increased competitiveness in higher strata leading humanity onward
>>572848
>appeal to conformity
So much for absolute proof of god.
>>572859
Kill yourself retard.
>>572867
>leading humanity onward
"And ye shall be as gods!" -Satan
>>572862
>just conveniently ignore them and claim bs.
That's because they are. There isn't a single concept defined consistently, and none of the claims you make are testable.
I refuse to waste my time on pseudo-scientific babble
Let's be real here, how many of the christians are actually just shitposters?
>>572848
Truth isn't a popularity contest. 9 people saying that different things happened doesn't mean any of them are correct. That doesn't mean the 10th person is correct either, but you can't just ignore the differences between different accounts or that the similarities make one of the accounts correct unless you can prove they're all derived from the same account.
>>572874
You haven't refuted a single argument.
Until you do, the ball is in your court.
Keep shitposting and backpeddling, it only proves to everyone ITT that atheists are incapable of arguing.
>>572876
Let's be real here, how many of the atheists are actually just shitposters?
>>572870
you first! after all, only one of those suicidal maniacs didnt agree, so by your logic its really best you should off yourself
>>572872
Have fun living in mudhut, at least your soul will be saved. Maybe.
>>572876
100%
its just one guy
"I won't believe anything before I have proof" is an impossible and intellectually dishonest approach to the world. Every single person holds a wide variety of unqualified assumptions and opinions that let them function in daily life. By studying deeply we can remove our assumption in perhaps several fields, but there is simply not enough time and resources to achieve some imaginary "blank state".
Some of the things humanity holds most dear are almost wholly based on belief and hope, such as love and friendship.
>>572893
>He isn't an agnostic atheist
Nice try, pleb.
>>572812
>First, the only completely accurate way to claim God is imaginary would be to know for certain that God does not exist.
No.
>Second, to claim God is imaginary requires an alternative sufficient claim
No.
>Third, to claim God is imaginary is to dismiss the many claims regarding God and the supernatural in this world.
"To claim God is imaginary is to claim God is imaginary". This is groundbreaking shit.
>Fourth, to claim God is imaginary overlooks the vast evidence regarding the complexity of design in the universe.
Complexity does not entail design. We are predisposed cognitively to ascribing intent to complex structures because that assumption has historically proven useful - a false positive of intentionality is, on the whole, far less costly (ie, apt to get you killed) than a false negative. Much, much better to mistake the rustling of tree-branches for the footsteps of approaching enemies than to mistake the footsteps of approaching enemies for the rustling of tree-branches.
>Fifth, the universal sense of morality points toward the likely existence of a moral God.
No, it doesn't. A complete non-sequitur.
>>572893
friendship is a concept you can observe and define. a magical sky fairy that watches over us is not.
>>572903
>le "magical sky fairy" meme
Let me guess, you believe you came from a monkey which came from a fish which came from soup.
Evolutionism is the most laughable religion in the world. It's also been debunked.
