Alright /his/ let's try this:
1: Are you an athiest
2: Why are you an athiest
Let's talk about this
1: Yes
2: There is no sober, unbiased reason to believe in any God
Thread over
>>834947
So is this an argument for the non-existence of any god? How did you come to this conclusion that it is entirely possible for any higher deity to exist at all?
>>834960
Because there is no sober, unbiased reason to believe in any God.
Read it again, and then a third time if you still don't get it.
>>834919
Yes
Grew up in an atheistic family in an atheistic country
1. No
2. I'm not
>>834919
I am an atheist because I am the master of my faith; I am the captain of my soul.
kek
j/k
Just playing the fool.
>>834919
1. Reluctantly.
2. Originally due to the problem of evil and because most of the uk is vaguely atheist so its the norm during teenage years.
>>834976
You may have to spell this one out for me
>>834983
This is really interesting actually, so your family believes in the impossibility of a god existing as opposed to be agnostic?
>>834988
I can't help but sympathize desu most Anglican churches are just community centers, but can we talk about your problem of evil?
Also let me make this clear distinction: An atheist believes no god of any kind can exist as opposed to doubting one might exist. Inherently being an atheist would advocate an argument that God doesn't exist. Much like a person must prove that no aliens can ever exist in the universe as opposed to believing they might
>>835008
There is no line of reasoning that ends in believing in the existence of any God that does not pass even a basic skepticism test, let alone a rigorous one.
Humans are liars, thieves, charlatans and con-men. They always want something from you. They always want to sell you something or make you join their cult or something or other. Skepticism is the only defense against the bullshit that other humans constantly try to rope me into, and religion doesn't pass even its entry-level requirements.
So that's why I'm an Atheist. Because I know humans are constantly lying and bullshitting to get something from me. And coincidentally, humans are the only ones who try to get me to believe in their special version of God. The idea of God is not something that ever came to me on my own volition - it was always brought upon me by other people.
>>835008
>This is really interesting actually, so your family believes in the impossibility of a god existing as opposed to be agnostic?
Dunno, they just don't care about it. Live their normal life without churches and religion.
Pretty much as me. I don't see any need in religion and god
>>835041
Very interesting, and just so we're clear before I type anything I am not trying to change your opinion and make you do anything other than you want, since frankly I don't care about what we do on a african knitting board.
And so with no other intention other than just ask you questions; how can you know that the concept of a higher deity's existence is the product of a human scheme? I don't doubt the effectiveness of using religion to con their fellow man, but even then how can this be proven?
>Are you an atheist?
Yes.
>Why are you an atheist?
Originally, I imagine that it formed out of teenage rebellion. These days, I still think it's a logical position to hold.
I progressed from anti-theist to atheist, however.
>>835056
I like this stance, or rather lack of. And I understand the lack of need to know whether a god or not exists, but even then this begs the question: Would you instead be not considered an atheist but rather some sort of non-committal agnostic where you don't care if one exists or not?
>>835066
I'm the same way actually, except I can't call myself an atheist. Personally I find the theory of everything coming together by mere coincidence more likely than a God, or rather I like it more. However I don't doubt a God CAN exist, I just doubt he actually does exist.
Could you not call yourself the same, anon?
>>835059
The reality is that it is impossible to actually "prove" anything because knowledge is either recursive or relies on making at least a few a prior assumptions.
That being said knowledge isn't quite so loose that I can't decide certain things such as whether or not it would hurt to touch a fire.
But my atheism comes from looking at the big picture. It is much, much, MUCH more likely that God is a human invention than not. I can't definitely "prove" it in the style of formal deductive reasoning, but inductive reasoning tells me that it is extremely likely that this is the case.
Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve
>>835075
>I find the theory of everything coming together by mere coincidence more likely than a God, or rather I like it more.
Is pretty much the exact same belief system that I follow.
I identify more with the statement "atheist" than "agnostic" but I think it's fine to use either interchangeably. I believe that "agnostic" and "gnostic" compliment "atheism" and "theism," so there could be an agnostic theist or a gnostic atheist.
I consider myself an agnostic atheist.
>>835089
I said it before and I'll say it again.
There is no sober, unbiased reason to believe in any God.
Period. Full stop. End of statement.
OP here, I have to go to work and I will likely not come back before this thread dies. Very nice conversation /his/. I should do this again next time
good day
1. Yes.
2. Decided not to trust the bullshit strangers made up. Humans are liars.
Alright, boys, so now that we're all together, we need to discuss how to better serve our Gramscian masters and push our Trotskyist, genocidal leftist agenda.
I believe the first step is to destroy existing Christian power structures, which I think can be necessitated by carrying out surgical strikes on locations in the bible belt.
>>835129
>not realizing that Europe has been slowly secularizing since the Peace of Westphalia
>everything is caused by Communist boogeyman may-may
>>835137
>>835125
same
Are agnostics welcome in this thread?
1. Gnostically so
2. The hell not? Organized religion hardly suits me, though I don't mind spiritualism. I feel pretty lenient about it. And there's definitely merit to be found in a lot of it.
After all, if I don't think there's an afterlife, or some inherent theistic meaning, then what am I gonna be when I'm dead and wrong? Am I gonna be disappointed? Don't think so. Even hellfire doesn't sound too bad at the expense of sensation-less oblivion.
Likewise, if I believe in an afterlife and all that awaits is nothing, I don't really think I'm gonna be too upset.
The answer is, it just suits me better not to be self-conscious about sempai in the sky noticing me.
>>835172
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
>>835172
Are you unsure of your welcome?
>>834919
>1: Are you an athiest
yes
>2: Why are you an athiest
I don't believe in god(s)
Yes.
Wasn't raised in a religious family. I just never really looked at religion in any other way than an academic one.
>>835189
>Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge")
>The term "atheism" originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)"
>>835189
>Of course they are. Atheism is based on faith.
Oh, not this meme again.
> If you believe there is no God then you are making a judgement about the probability of extra-universal objects.
Well, thankfully, most atheists don't believe anything of the sort.
This is a strawman constructed for the explicit purpose of misrepresenting the atheist's argument.
I suggest looking more into the "gnostic vs. agnostic" dichotomy before posting again, my dude.
1: Yes
2: Because what I personally think of as a god, has properties such as necessary existence, which as far as I can tell is impossible. And everything else I hear people call gods are either not coherent or concluded with evidence too weak to warrant belief.
>>835199
How do you people make all of this retarded graphs without bothering to actually do any reading?
Gnosticism is/was a sect of Christianity. It's not a statement about how strongly you believe something, you moron.
Likewise, agnosticism is the belief that gnosis about the divine is unattainable. You can't believe that there's no god while also believing that any statements about the probability of god are meaningless.
>>835200
Read a book, nigger.
If you don't believe in god, then you believe that the universe exists and manifests independent of an external creator. That's a belief based on faith.
1: Yes
2: Never seen a reason not to be. Even been clinically dead for a while, no light or happy relatives in cloud city or nothing. Basically just waiting to see god or something before I believe.
>>835214
Yea, thats Gnosticism, not Gnostic on its own. Words can have more than one meaning anon.
>Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστιkός gnostikos, "having knowledge", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a modern term categorizing a collection of ancient religions whose adherents shunned the material world
>>835200
Maybe you should. Atheists say there is no God, as though they knew that were the case. As if they had a vote. As if they mattered. Anything weaker than that is an Agnostic.
>>835202
So you can do something God can't do; you can exist, while God can't.
Well and truly it is only the fool who says in his heart there is no God.
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
>>835222
>Atheists say there is no god.
What is the "burden of proof" for 500, Alex?
>as though they knew that were the case
>Theists
>In charge of presenting other's arguments.
>As if they had a vote. As if they mattered.
If none of this matters, why are you here?
>>835222
Yea that's why most are agnostic (not claiming certainty) atheists (lacking a belief in god/s).
American by any chance?
>>835219
I'm sorry if facts trigger you.
Go ahead and explain to me how you can believe in a self-manifesting, self-sustaining universe that has no external agent acting upon it or within it. Then you can provide some proof for it.
>>835220
So you admit that you're just redefining Gnosticism to mean whatever you want?
In that case, I'm a Trans-demi-platonic Pagan. Which is actually a type of agnostic, 'cos well-established and meaningful words mean whatever I want them to.
>>835247
some people just recycle old b8. kind of has a charm actually.
>>835222
You know that you aren't going to be harassed by faeries when you're sleeping because you didn't leave out milk for them. You know that you don't need to die a death in battle to secure your place in Valhalla. You know that a chicken eating or not can't be taken as a sign of your coming fortunes. So, furthermore, you should also feel comfortable in saying that god doesn't exist, because God is yet another one of these concepts that you can't disprove, but that you can't prove has any real material effect on your life. You don't do this, presumably, because you believe that God has power, and because you cling to the comfort this belief gives you, which is intellectually dishonest.
>>835240
Gnosticism =/= Gnostic (unless you are referring to a a follower of Gnosticism, context is important).
>So you admit that you're just redefining Gnosticism to mean whatever you want?
But anon
>Gnosticism is a MODERN term categorizing a collection of ancient religions.
>>835250
I guess it's good for reinforcing old arguments, I just wish they'd come up with something new.
>first time on /his/ in years
>this thread
>fedora overlords in charge
see ya guys.
>>835247
He's just projecting gnosticism onto discussion that could easily happen without even warranting it.
The idea that a diametrically opposed concept of athiesm needs to exist to argue the implausibility of theism is flawed to the core. The forcing of this presents a loaded question to an agnostic of either faith, who reject the premise of either of these concepts.
>>835260
>first time on /his/ in years
Hello, Reddit!
>>835258
Agreed. You know what would be cool? If a troll used new b8 that really argued a stupid point, then I would be interested.
>>835232
They have no proof. They make an assertive claim: There is no God.
To know such a thing would require infinite knowledge. And then I would have a being with infinite knowledge telling me that there is no being with infinite knowledge.
Atheism is not only childish and foolish, it is self-refuting.
>>835233
There was no chance involved.
Christians, is there any chance you guys could come up with some new bait? Don't you guys think this same argument over and over again is getting a bit tired? I mean, you guys just talk yourselves in circles until you run out of breath, take a big gulp of air, and keep going. Is new bait so much to ask for?
>>835251
I am hassled at night by non-human entities. I am hassled in the daytime by non-human entities. I have a non-human entity dwelling in me right this very second, Whom the former entities fear. And rightly so. I know God, and He knows me.
Ignorance of the sort you have is not only not contagious, it is not compelling.
>>835267
>Argue my fallacious point! Guys, pay attention to my strawman!
No.
>>835290
Show me Hawkin's parallel universes.
Show me the big bang.
Show me an example of an animal evolving before our very eyes.
>>835290
I have already pointed you to Jesus on the cross; Jesus in the tomb; and the empty tomb where Jesus no longer resides.
I have already told you that God created the universe, and that the universe God created infers Him quite strongly.
I have already told you that your worldview has no upside, and is not rational. Nor can it explain anything supernatural, paranormal, evil, or divine.
I have already told you Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. I have told you, and the Holy Spirit has told you.
It's not that you don't have enough evidence to know God; it's that you don't want to. It's that you're in rebellion against God. It's that you have antipathy for a being you swear doesn't even exist. It's for pain, or suffering, or hopelessness, or emptiness, or just a profound lack of Love, Acceptance, Meaning, and Purpose in your life.
You have been told, and you have enough evidence to believe. God will not overwhelm your sovereignty, and will not allow me to either. This is your choice. This is your life. Start living it.
>>835287
If you want some new bait, I've got some.
>If existentialism means nothing, why practice it?
>Wouldn't God have made the world using the last-tuesday method?
Theres a few.
>>835290
>I simply do not believe in any god.
That's great. What DO you believe?
Do you believe, for example, that the universe exists without a creator?
>>835294
>I refuse to deal with anyone more intelligent than me because the implications of what he's saying make me uncomfortable!
Fedoras, Ladies & Gentlemen.
>>835287
The truth remains static and exclusive, so, no. If you crave lies, and love people who make up wonderful lies, God is not for you.
>>835298
>Show me Hawkin's parallel universes.
Quantuum mechanics
>Show me the big bang.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence
>Show me an example of an animal evolving before our very eyes.
Fossil records, micro-evolution, different dog breeds
>>835298
Here they are.
>>835304
>Do you believe, for example, that the universe exists without a creator?
yes.
>>835304
Ve believe in nosing, Mr Lebowski.
>>835303
Who argues for predetermination?
That's one of my favorites.
>>835298
Holy fuck you're stupid.
>>835288
Ah, so not only are you intellectually dishonest, you're mentally ill. That's fine. It's not the goal of atheism to impose truth on the recalcitrant, but to liberate the willing.
>>835309
mumble mumble QM mumble mumble wike cite mumble mumble fossil records.
Wow.
Pathetic.
>>835316
That is a completely unprovable and un-falsifiable assertion. There's no evidence for it that I'm aware of.
>>835316
Do you believe paintings exist without painters? Buildings exist without builders? Children exist without parents?
>>835326
I am free.
>>835321
KEK. That one's a classic.
I mostly like the scientific ones. Like trying to make a difference between macro and micro evolution, and denying "macro-evolution". Classic and stupid, but it works every damn time.
>>835298
Irrelevant. None of these has anything to do with a belief in any particular deity.
>>835302
So your proof of your claim... is your claim? No.
>>835304
There is a universe which can be observed and measured. That which can be measured should be, that which can't can be speculated about but never know.
>>835330
Well it's pretty supported. Has more support than a God existing. Therefore it's more logical to fall into my boat.
>>835309
>Quantuum mechanics
Still doesn't PROVE it, though it most likely exists.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence
When you have to post a wikipedia entry you know you're in trouble.
>Fossil records, micro-evolution, different dog breeds
Again, that's not SEEING it. Evolution is 100% true, but we have never SEEN it. We've never seen a human born without an appendix. Or an dolphin that's born with an exoskeleton to protect itself from sharks, etc.
As for the dog breeds, that's not evolution, that's just gene mixing.
>>835336
Kent Hovind is probably the most based out of all the "scientific creationism" retards, mostly because he's so fucking wacky.
>>835332
>muh intelligent design
>>835328
>show me these things
>shows you
>oh yeah well NYEEEH
>>835343
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Here you go, buddy.
>>835339
>Irrelevant. None of these has anything to do with a belief in any particular deity.
That's not what I said. All those things I talked about are 100% true, but we've never actually SEEN them in action. We've never seen God either, so you're argument of "show me he exists" is moronic.
>>835344
Haven't heard of him, and now I must go watch him. Thanks.
>>835357
You're in for a wild fucking ride, buddy.
>>835357
>>835352
>https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The Big Bang might also have been the beginning of time. If the Big Bang was the beginning of time, then there was no universe before the Big Bang, since there was no concept of "before" without time. Other ideas state that the Big Bang was not the beginning of time 13.8 billion years ago. Instead, some believe that there was a different universe before and it may have been very different from the one we know today."
So there's a whole bunch of theories (that we can't duplicate and haven't seen).
And get some reading comprehension. I'm not saying the Big Bang Theory isn't real. I'm saying that we know it's real, but we haven't seen it.
>>835356
Actually, we have seen them in action. That's why they're part of mainstream science. The fact that you don't understand why scientists draw conclusions about things they can't directly see doesn't invalidate it.
>>835367
So, basically, you're preaching to the choir?
>>835369
Once again, you're a retard.
Evolution, the Big Bang Theory are 100% true (and Hawking parallel universe is probably true), but despite all the scientific data, they've NEVER BEEN SEEN. Same way God has NEVER BEEN SEEN.
>>835366
oh boy...
>>835380
We've never seen Evolution, but it's real.
We've never seen God, but to you he's not real?
>>835387
Evolution is provable. Theres evidence for it, and we see it all the time.
God on the other hand... Not so much.
>>834919
1: More or less. If your definition is particularly finicky you might prefer to call me agnostic. I'm not terribly interested in that line of discussion though.
2: Reluctantly. Got a good religious education, had big chunks of the Bible memorized. Liked being religious. Still kind of a religiboo.
Couldn't find or put forward a conception of the divine that really worked. Omnipotence/omniscience especially poses a problem. Problem of evil presupposes the existence of evil by most phrasings, but the fact remains that nothing can happen that isn't an omnipotent God's will (either because He caused it or permitted its cause with foreknowledge of the outcome) and that presents all kinds of problems down the line. Not just that stuff I don't like happens, but also that if I were an atheist that would necessarily be God's will.
If you follow that line of thought, God is necessarily also ineffable. Which kind of wrecks the most basic purposes a belief in God could have. If you can't figure out God's will, you can't really have a relationship with Him, appease Him for any reason, or use your understanding to know right from wrong or anything.
There's also no solid evidence or logical argument that really works to demonstrate God existing. If I'm being honest with myself, that probably wouldn't have been sufficient to change my mind at the time I did. If religion made any sense as a tool for ordering my life or understanding my world, I probably could have made that leap. I really wanted to. Now, even knowing religion could be comfy for me again, I don't think I could go back with any sincerity.
>>835382
If you put a tarp over something, it might not exist anymore! You literally have the reasoning capabilities of an infant.
>>835387
Well, we have seen evolution.
We have not seen god.
>>835382
But that's not true at all. Just because the general consensus is that these things are most likely to be true does not make them "100% true".
>>835392
Some people just never grow out of object perminence :^)
>>835382
Natural selection influencing the frequency of genes within a population has been seen though.
>Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.
>>835390
>Evolution is provable. Theres evidence for it, and we see it all the time.
>God on the other hand... Not so much.
So you're just ignoring things like life itself, consciousness, etc because "herr derr that's not evidence of God herr derr!"
The Big Bang happened but all the details can't be agreed upon. They still don't know how something came from nothing.
>>835393
>Well, we have seen evolution.
How have we SEEN it. We've seen fossils, yes. But we've never SEEN a species change based on it's environment.
>>835406
You're right. And believing that "something" to be God is unreasonable, and fallacious. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
>>835392
Are you retarded? I didn't say the science in question didn't exist.
>>835406
>So you're just ignoring things like life itself, consciousness, etc because "herr derr that's not evidence of God herr derr!"
It's not. Evidence for God would be something that actually signifies God existing. Like God actually showing himself, or Jesus coming back. Not this "Science can't explain it, therefore God" bullshit.
>>835398
>Natural selection influencing the frequency of genes within a population has been seen though.
But we haven't SEEN it. The evidence is there, and it's 100% true, but we haven't SEEN it.
>>835415
Artificial selection exists. If you want a higher standard of evidence than that, you fundamentally don't understand what evolution is.
>>835406
but it isn't evidence for god. How do life or consciousness imply intelligent design?
1. Yes
2. All the reasonable definitions of God or gods make it pointless to worship or even acknowledge them, because those gods are either unthinking and unacting or no longer involved with the universe.
>>835416
>And believing that "something" to be God is unreasonable, and fallacious.
Believing that it might not be God is arrogant and moronic. "herr derr something came from nothing because I said so!"
>>835415
>But we've never SEEN a species change based on it's environment.
Yes we have, change by how much is the grey area that your arguing, which is due to the arbitrary division between micro and macro evolution that proponents for intelligent design and creationism use. Evolution is >>835398, it's not divided into micro and macro apart from some religious groups.
>>835432
Do you mean like we 'haven't seen' the double helix shape of DNA with our own eyes directly?
>>835426
>It's not. Evidence for God would be something that actually signifies God existing. Like God actually showing himself, or Jesus coming back.
Wow, you just want everything splayed out for you like a naked guy in Playgirl.
Any evidence put forth to you is "no way! that's not God!" Do you see how ridiculous you sound? You've adjusted the game to shoot down everything.
>>835422
Your argument is that different standards of evidence are being applied to God and to scientific theories like evolution, the big bang, and so on. You are wrong. Asking for evidence of God is a lot like asking for evidence of the Big Bang, and we can show you that evidence, which when fit with our understanding of astrophysics, points towards the big bang happening. It's a reasonable conclusion to draw, even though we weren't literally there to witness it happening. There is nothing similar for God.
>>835433
I'm not saying evolution doesn't exist you fucking autist, I'm saying there's NO ONE who has seen it happen in real time.
>>835442
Try proving that your prime mover thinks in any manner that can reasonably be called thinking. Or why that style of thinking is in any way necessary. Computer-God and Lovecraft-God need not apply.
>>835455
What evidence? You mean lack of science evidence for something? God of the gaps my dude.
And furthermore, I do want everything laid out for me like a naked dude in playgirl. Thats why I like science. Because it does just that.
>>835467
And why does that matter? You're moving goalposts.
>>835059
It's simple deduction, really.
Given the known facts, "god is a human fabrication" is the most logical explanation that remains firmly within the bounds of logic, and the theory which makes the least assumptions.
It is, therefore, logically the "most" correct until more facts can be introduced that would alter the explanatory theory.
>>835454
>humans born with appendix
>appendix is useless
>one day we will born without appendix
Let me know if something like this has been observed with humans or animals.
>>835479
>I got a C- in high school biology
>>835467
I've read about studies showing sexual and natural selection changing the camouflage of a certain fish species, in one pool with no predators present the average size of spots on the fish increased (suggested to be sexual selection resulting from female preference), but when a predator species was introduced the spot size diminished across multiple generations (likely resulting from predation pressure and smaller spots providing better camouflage against the substrate). Change within a species based on it's environment >>835415
>>835473
Just because we've never seen it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
You're a bunch of autists looking for evidence of God, but pretty much shoot answer with "herr derr God of the Gaps!" theory. Goalpost moving.
Something came from nothing. And from that nothing very biologically complex lifeforms with consciousness came to be.
There's a reason why most atheist online are considered a fucking joke nowadays.
>>835482
Uh, how am I wrong? Eventually humans will most likely be born without an appendix or tonsils. But such a thing has NEVER been observed.
>>835479
For one, you don't understand how evolution works, nor have you read up much on the appendix.
For two, elephants with small tusks or ones that lack tusks are more common because of ivory poaching, and they're passing on their genes to bring about generations of new elephants with a similar lack of tusks.
>>835489
You're now rambling incoherently, which is terribly funny, and stereotypical of the people who are so emotionally charged with their religious beliefs that they take to defend them anonymously online.
P.S. God of the gaps means exactly the opposite of what you're implying.
>>835479
>Let me know if something like this has been observed with humans or animals.
Elephant's Tusks are getting smaller due to poaching
Certain species of fish are getting smaller due to fishing.
In a forest in England it was reported that butterflies were growing darker due to soot from a nearby factory staining the trees. After the factory shut down the successive generations grew brighter.
>>835503
He listens to what he's told and goes to church. His parents raised him well. He's a good goyim :DDD
>>835503
I'm not rambling, nor am I particularly religious, it's just shocking to me how little the world you autists exist in.
All science, no philosophy, and where did it get you. A bunch of fat neckbeards wearing fedoras and watching MLP. (or one of those atheist psychos like Dawkins). Is that what evolution planned for you? I sure hope it wasn't what God planned for you.
>>835496
The appendix has a negligible impact on calorie usage and the average number of offspring generated. Tonsils actually have a function, however minor, and if we didn't thwart natural selection by removing them, severe cases and complications of tonsillitis would remove those with disadvantageous tonsil genetics from the gene pool.
>>835512
>>835512
u alrite man? haha
>>835501
>For two, elephants with small tusks or ones that lack tusks are more common because of ivory poaching, and they're passing on their genes to bring about generations of new elephants with a similar lack of tusks.
Evolution takes millions of years. Poachers haven't been around that long.
>>835512
>Claims not to be praticularly religious, but has this whole debate
>"Focusing on Science instead of both Science and Philosophy makes you a neckbeard" without realizing hat most "neckbeard" arguments have some emphasis on philosophy.
>ad hominem
How did you sink this low?
>>835479
But exactly that is happening.
People being born without an appendix is a thing. a quick google search tells me it's about 1 in 100,00 people being born without an appendix. So there's your direct evidence.
>>835512
Science IS philosophy you fucking goon. The false dichotomy is what produces idiots like you on both sides of this argument.
>>835508
>Elephant's Tusks are getting smaller due to poaching
>Certain species of fish are getting smaller due to fishing.
Evolution takes millions of years. By that logic Africans would have grown wings to avoid white slavers.
>>835517
It's gotten to the point it's funny :^)
>>835520
Completely, flagrantly incorrect. Google "natural selection".
>>835520
Evolution is a constant process, and poaching is a very extreme selection pressure.
>>835512
>I'm not rambling
and then you write this paragraph
>
All science, no philosophy, and where did it get you. A bunch of fat neckbeards wearing fedoras and watching MLP. (or one of those atheist psychos like Dawkins). Is that what evolution planned for you? I sure hope it wasn't what God planned for you
You're rambling
>>835524
So to you philosophy = theology?
>>835538
No but a lot of Atheist arguments have an emphasis on Philosophy; not nescessarly theology.
>>835520
>Evolution takes millions of years
When brought about by subtle environmental pressures, yes. Humans are not a subtle environmental pressure.
>>835528
"Not every prey animal on Earth is capable of flight. Why would evolution let this happen? Checkmate, atheists."
>>835536
Oh c'mon, be easy on him. He's getting BTFO'd so hard you can't help but feel for the little guy.
>Atheist thread
>full of edgy teens saying "le humans are liars:( "
>"science rocks" meme
>"science sucks" meme
>you can be agnostic and atheist ya knoe? :DD
fuck man, at least post atheist literature or something
>>835528
>Evolution takes millions of years.
Depends on so many factors that it's retarded to claim. Strong selection pressure greatly accelerates the process.
>>835479
>A perfect creator gives humans an appendix.
>A perfect creator gives humans tonsils.
>A perfect creator gives humans wisdom teeth.
>You can have a meaningful relationship with the guy who deliberately routed your urethra in a way that will fuck you up if you pick something up wrong. Don't forget He loves you.
>>835553
The obvious one, but it's a thread starter.
>>835547
>Oh c'mon, be easy on him. He's getting BTFO'd so hard you can't help but feel for the little guy.
Oh yeah I'm BTFO.
>something came from nothing? it can't be God!
>human consciousness is so complex we can barely begin to understand it? it can't be God!
I remember when atheists weren't building churches, fighting with each other on Twitter, being accused of rape, wearing horrible fedoras, and having bodies that no female would find suitable as a mate.
>>835556
Who said he was perfect?
Who said he loves me?
>>835560
>I remember when atheists weren't building churches, fighting with each other on Twitter, being accused of rape, wearing horrible fedoras, and having bodies that no female would find suitable as a mate.
Literally everything you mentioned, more theists are doing it because theres still more theists. And if you're argument relies on neckbeard stereotypes, you're BTFOd.
>>835560
You've become the laughing stock of this entire post. Just stop.
>>835512
Good generalization, though you had a point earlier.
Outspoken gnosticists of either camp usually present themselves with an arrogance that's laughable. They'll argue, as if it's not enough for people to simply choose. They will tell you that their idea is self evident, and then unaware of the irony of the situation, present and demand evidence. Or my favorite: that either camp on its own, theism or atheism, will somehow be the downfall of humanity without the presence of other concepts.
Often, these arguments are never actually about theism vs atheism. It's a proxy in which we bicker about things that are only contextually related, draw strawmen, parrot debates that have already happened, and see how many things we personally don't like can be pinned on the donkey.
Ridiculous.
>>835566
Ineffable/indifferent/possibly maltheist God is okay I guess. Sort of wrecks the purpose of faith though. You're not going to convince this guy to look out for you, or get any help distinguishing right from wrong.
>>835581
I wasn't aware that faith existed as its own entity in a platonic sense and enforced its own purpose.
>>835553
Ayaan Hirsi Ali's books Heretic and Infidel are particularly interesting as someone who has never been "inside" Islam.
>>835571
>Literally everything you mentioned, more theists are doing it because theres still more theists.
If more theists are doing it, then why don't you start a "Christian Cringe" thread with all those christians wearing fedoras and fighting on twitter over who is the least psycho?
>And if you're argument relies on neckbeard stereotypes, you're BTFOd.
My argument is the start of the universe and the complexity of consciousness.
The fact that the most staunch anti-God people are some of the most physically disgusting and socially weird is just funny and really makes me think.
>>835560
>>something came from nothing? it can't be God!
The universe was very small and then it grew very big very quickly. Rehashing old mythology is a retarded theory for how this happened, it doesn't explain anything and it's clearly based on anthropocentric and nostalgic values. String theory is less retarded than this, and string theory is pretty retarded.
>>human consciousness is so complex we can barely begin to understand it? it can't be God!
Things are complex therefore god. Okay. You've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand and said that something is too complex to exist naturally. Why?
>I remember when atheists weren't building churches, fighting with each other on Twitter, being accused of rape, wearing horrible fedoras, and having bodies that no female would find suitable as a mate.
rambling again
>>835574
I notice you didn't answer my claims.
>>835591
>My argument is the start of the universe and the complexity of consciousness.
Yeah, and you devolved to neckbeard stereotypes. Face it, you lost.
>>835585
Don't be an autist. If you get something out of believing in a mad god good for you. I don't much see any point in it.
>>835593
>The universe was very small and then it grew very big very quickly.
The patient zero of this is something came from nothing.
>Things are complex therefore god. Okay. You've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand and said that something is too complex to exist naturally. Why?
I'm not saying it's God, I'm saying why can't it be God? Oh yeah, because you're a narrow minded autist.
>rambling again
Truth hurts, brah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp4NkItgf0E
>>835600
>Yeah, and you devolved to neckbeard stereotypes. Face it, you lost.
Still doesn't change the fact that I'm right.
>>835623
Whats making us beat you is that we've beat your arguments down to rambling about neckbeards.
>>835623
Well, it does. Someone refutes your points and you just sit in the corner screaming FUH-DORA
FUH-DORA FUH-DORA
>>835618
So you patting your neckbeard buddies on the back = victory?
>Sorry. You put up a good fight. Good luck next time.
Uh huh. My arguments still stand. Only the typical "herr derr it can't be God because SCIENZ!"
>>835632
>835633
How did something come from nothing?
We can't even cure eczema and you think intelligence is to a point where consciousness and existence can be answered for?
1.Yes
2.No reason for a god, case closed
>>835643
>we don't know how that exists yet
>SO OBVIOUSLY, GOD COULD HAVE DONE THAT
>well yeah, he could have, but there's not really proof for i-
>SO THAT MEANS GOD DID IT
>>835654
I never said God did. I said why can't God have done it?
I'm open minded. You're a narrow minded autist.
>>835633
>Him right now.
>>835661
He could have. Thor also could have done it. Same with Shiva, Alexander the Great, and my aunt Susan.
But there's no evidence for any of them. Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean that all possible answers were created equally.
>>835671
>Yeah but the majority of people only believe in God, so it HAS to be him DDD:
>>835661
God doesn't have a good track record as far as curing diseases goes. On the other hand, empirical reasoning and materialist thinking does.
>>835618
>he put up a good fight.
KEK
>>835616
>The patient zero of this is something came from nothing.
no. Singularity isn't nothing.
> I'm saying why can't it be God? Oh yeah, because you're a narrow minded autist.
If that's what you believe then whatever. I just think it's silly. It's like saying that aliens built the pyramids. Can't disprove it but it's still stupid.
And you shouldn't call people narrow minded autists after going on emotional rants on a chinese cartoon website just because they disagree with you.
>>835671
>But there's no evidence for any of them.
>we barely have an understanding of how something came from nothing
>we barely have an understanding of consciousness
And you want evidence? The fact that it somehow happened is the evidence. This isn't the case of "which person committed the murder?" (we don't know), this is the case of "was a murder committed?" (yes).
The only formal arguments for a god have never correlated with a particular God of a particular religion. Maybe god is real, but he could be some ayy lmao, or fucking Zeus for all K know.
>>835698
Does consciousness exist? Yes.
That's the entire conclusion. It came about somehow.
>>835698
>"was a murder committed?" (yes).
No. A murder conviction would never be upheld with literally no evidence.
Who else likes God as a purely literary concept? There's something so cool about referring to God in a completely secular way
>>835745
Yeah. Just because the idea is cool doesn't make it true. Hopefully one day humanity comes to see it that way, and hopefully soon.
>>835745
>Who else likes God as a purely literary concept?
I used to love it but it keeps getting used in motte and bailey arguments by theists so I've gone off it.
>>835415
Evolution doesn't happen like it happens in pokemon, you giant retard.
>>835415
Mericsnd kek
While indirect evidence is highly used in all contex there has been various examples of adaptation when drastic environmental changes ocurr in secluded groups.
>>834919
1 Yes
2 Never was the faith kind of guy. I don't like dogmatic thinking and the general anti-life stances of religions either
>>835745
I think when delivered right, it can give a statement a lot of weight. The concept of a deity already holds a tremendous power over us in individual ways. If it did not, we would not have these heated debates. All that need be done is to evoke it.
I enjoy theology, and many of my favorite works derive a good deal from theology. Coen Sibling movies, for example, wouldn't be half as interesting if it weren't for their use of it.
>>834919
1: Yes
2: because there is zero proof or reason to believe the contrary, and I find its rules (besides the ones that mark basic human decency like don't kill, which is mostly shared by near every major religion, state, society etc) to be arbitrary at best and harmful at worst.
Side note, deism was just a 17th century cowards way of saying he was an atheist.
>>835082
How do you know?
Were you there?
1. No
2. Deus vult
>>834919
Yes.
There is no empirical evidence for any god and any god that gets talked about seems obviously made up by people.
1. Yes
2. There is no evidence for what is an incredible claim about reality
>atheists only
>are you an atheist
Circlejerk general?
>>835955
>basic human decency like don't kill, which is mostly shared by near every major religion, state, society etc
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>836038
I said mostly and near.
There will almost always be a contrary example in human society or exemptions to the rule.
Most people don't often think war casualties count as murder.
>>836057
>exemptions to the rule.
Then we have a ton of exceptions.
>>835512
You can't argue a god into existence, no matter how hard you try.
>>836105
>self-sustaining
What do you mean by this?
>self-created
That makes this a loaded question. Creation implies a creator.
>power and will
Those are human traits, the universe doesn't have to conform to that.
>despite not existing previously
The Universe may have always existed, just not in the way it exists now. Why do you assume it didn't exist previously?
>>836105
The proof is currently being held under scrutiny. Our current model is well accepted to be a useful, but temporary one.
The scientific community by principle will never permanently accept any conclusion on this. Functionally, it may act on these conclusions, but only because no other, more convincing alternative has been put forward. Unfortunately, theism is not really redpilling them away from it. To most, it simply doesn't stand up to the scrutiny that they already expect of their existing model. That is not to say all.
It's common knowledge within the scientific communities that our understanding of the world is in flux. It's only through a theistic mindset that one would come to a conclusion that you are demonstrating and believe it without question or challenge.
>>836073
>atrocities are evidence of a society lacking laws
You are reaching pretty far.
>>836136
>What do you mean by this?
It means the universe doesn't require anything else to keep itself in existence. Otherwise we might ask why universe doesn't spontaneously and suddenly return to the nothing that it apparently came from. If we're ruling out a creator then we have to assume that the universe is sustaining itself.
>That makes this a loaded question. Creation implies a creator.
Would you prefer "spawned"? "Manifested"? Tell me what the reasonable alternative is to a created universe.
>Those are human traits, the universe doesn't have to conform to that.
Logically I would say it does. If the universe manifested, then something must have provided the ability for it to do that. Likewise, one would think that something must have chosen for the universe to manifest. Otherwise why would there be a universe? Couldn't nothing have just remained nothing without a universe in it?
>The Universe may have always existed, just not in the way it exists now. Why do you assume it didn't exist previously?
Fair question. But a previously-existing universe doesn't really solve anything for us, since we then have to ask all of the same questions about the previously-existing universe: why was it there, how did it acquire the agency and potential to manifest?
>>836073
yeah but they have equally been committed by religious people. Not him btw.
>>836105
Natural law and what we know now?
We are trying to figure out the big questions as we speak m8, saying that we have it figured out already without anything to back it is just making it harder to solve.
>>836181
>Otherwise we might ask why universe doesn't spontaneously and suddenly return to the nothing that it apparently came from
What is 'nothing'? Creationists often use this terminology and I don't think it applies to the universe existing. Also, who says the universe won't go 'back to the nothing it apparently came from'.
>Would you prefer "spawned"? "Manifested"? Tell me what the reasonable alternative is to a created universe
I honestly don't care what terminology you use, just don't get angry when I call you out for presupposing a god.
>Logically I would say it does
The Universe doesn't have to follow your logic.
Why does there have to be a why? That's the thing with you creationists, it's always why with you people. Not everything needs a reason for existing.
>why was it there
Again with the why.
>>836181
>It means the universe doesn't require anything else to keep itself in existence.
Why should it? Besides whose to say it does? For all we know last tuesdayism is entirely correct. The universe could have started last week, it could be an endless cycle of death and rebirth with us just carrying on our lives unaware. Or it could be that the big bang did happen and the universe has been growing for the last 14 billion or so years as evidence suggests.
>Would you prefer "spawned"? "Manifested"? Tell me what the reasonable alternative is to a created universe.
An infinite universe.
>Logically I would say it does.
Who the fuck are you again? Nobody? We need more than just your feelings on the topic please.
>why was it there, how did it acquire the agency and potential to manifest?
Reality does not require agency. Way to anthropomorphize the universe there buddy.
>>836224
>What is 'nothing'?
It's the absence of anything.
> Also, who says the universe won't go 'back to the nothing it apparently came from'.
Why doesn't it do that now?
>The Universe doesn't have to follow your logic.
So you're just throwing logic out the window then. You have no answers for me and won't even accept the application of logic to the question, because you're so afraid of what the answer might imply.
> just don't get angry when I call you out for presupposing a god.
Son, that works both ways. You're so eager to rule out the possibility of a creator that you won't even engage with the question.
>>836235
>Why should it?
Who said it should?
>Besides whose to say it does?
Right.
>For all we know last tuesdayism is entirely correct. The universe could have started last week, it could be an endless cycle of death and rebirth with us just carrying on our lives unaware
But that would require more assumptions than a simpler explanation, such as a self-creating universe or an extra-universal creator.
>An infinite universe
Okay, that still gets us nowhere. How'd it get here? Why, how, etc.
>Who the fuck are you again? Nobody? We need more than just your feelings on the topic please.
I'm sorry if logic makes you a bit uneasy.
Tell me then, why is there something rather than nothing? And how did this process occur free of all agency? And how could a universe have manifested without something having the potential to manifest it?
You're just shitposting at this point.
OP here, still at work and I am surprised this thread is still up. This thread had several purposes, one of which is to prove the impossibility of the learned man to become Atheist through the impossibility to assert that it is impossible that a higher deity can exist, second is the criticism of most Catholic apoligetics who actively avoid theological debate with Agnostics and instead pick up the strawman of "Atheism" and finally to bring a new perspective of the discussion of faith and humanities.
I will catch up on this thread later, but I'm glad to see this thread being still alive with so much interest, thanks again, everyone.
>>836257
>It's the absence of anything
What is anything? These words are meaningless in the existence of the universe?
>Why doesn't it do that now?
I have no idea because maybe it takes a while, who knows?
>So you're just throwing logic out the window then
Who says your logic is actual logic?
>You're so eager to rule out the possibility of a creator that you won't even engage with the question
Except I didn't rule it out? Atheism is a LACK OF BELIEF in god. Not a disbelief, not belief that there is no god. I'm saying I don't know because I'm agnostic as well as atheist. Unless you're saying you know, we're both in the same boat and there's no point in arguing. You believe in a god, I have a lack of belief in deities. That's how it's gonna stay.
>>836303
Okay, so apparently you have no contribution to make to the discussion whatsoever. Let me know once you can provide a reasonable theory to talk about.
>I'm agnostic as well as atheist
As was pointed out earlier in the thread, this is a contradiction in terms. Gnosticism is not a measure of how much you believe in something.
If you need a word for lacking a belief in God, then why don't you also have a word for lacking belief in Nirvana, or Thor or animism or the afterlife? I think you're very confused.
The question is "does God exist"? If you think the answer is "probably not" then you are not an agnostic. You are making judgments about the probability of things which by definition would exist outside of the universe. That's a non-falsifiable claim that you have no evidence for.
>>836340
Atheism covers all gods, I meant to put 'a' there before not just 'god'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Atheism isn't a claim, it's the rejection of a claim.
>>836340
I reserve my belief for when there's evidence of a god which I don't believe will happen because seemingly all gods are made up.
>>834919
1. no, agnostic
2. I took a first year philosophy course, and can't wrap my head around the cosmological argument
>>836340
Also, I don't even know what it means for something 'exist outside of time and space' so that's irrelevant.
>213 replies and 18 images
We really do need to separate humanities from this board.
>>836376
We need a separate >>>/rel/.
>>836361
That's a strangely specific subdivision of things you don't believe in. What about devas or angels? What word do you use to describe your lack of belief in them?
>Atheism isn't a claim, it's the rejection of a claim.
I think this is a cowardly way of avoiding the burden of proof. So-called atheists say that their curiously specific disbelief doesn't imply belief of non-existence, but then they somehow can never put forth their own worldview, because that would force them to justify their latent beliefs.
And yet they somehow claim to be agnostics at the same time, both answering a question of probability and rejecting the question outright.
This:
>>836363
...is a perfect example. "I won't state any belief whatsoever, so I won't have to justify anything. By the way, I don't DISBELIEVE in God ;) "
>>836366
I've already dealt with that. Gnosticism is/was a Christian sect. Agnosticism takes a particular view of the question of God that is incompatible with atheism.
If you think the question can't be answered then it doesn't make any sense to also offer an answer.
>>836374
>I have nothing whatsoever to contribute, so I'm going to play dumb and stop anyone from forming a logical answer
>>836389
In order for it to be a disbelief, there would have to be evidence for a deity. Atheism isn't a belief or a worldview and you're mad about it. Learn what words mean.
Disbelief: "inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real"
>>836389
You're saying you know what it means for something to exist outside of time and space? Please, do tell.
>>836389
>Agnosticism takes a particular view of the question of God that is incompatible with atheism.
>If you think the question can't be answered then it doesn't make any sense to also offer an answer.
As an example, I believe that abiogenesis occurred. Yet I don't claim to have knowledge of how it occurred (certain theories seem more likely that others, but the are open to falsifiability).
I believe the universe exists, Yet I don't claim certainty of how it occurred (especially as it's not my particular field of study). If you claim that it was God, then I claim uncertainty about it being God. I currently lack a belief in God/s, yet I don't claim certainty of whether a God was involved or not.
Agnostic atheist.
>>836438
He won't get it.
>>836447
I've read Dawkins, son. I know how this silly paradigm goes.
Read a book sometime: gnosticism isn't your personal marker of how sure you are about things.
>>836438
You are not an atheist then. You are not proposing a worldview in which there is no God.
I've explained very clearly how atheism and agnosticism are mutually-exclusive. I'm not going to bother doing it again.
>>836420
>In order for it to be a disbelief, there would have to be evidence for a deity
No there wouldn't. I disbelieve in unicorns. There is no evidence for unicorns.
>>836464
No.
>>836464
You don't disbelieve in unicorns, you have a lack of belief in unicorns.
>>836464
>You are not an atheist then. You are not proposing a worldview in which there is no God.
But I am, I'm explaining why my worldview is one in which there is no God/s (this doesn't mean that I rule out the possibility that I am wrong).
>>836464
Gnostic has two different meanings. Sometimes it refers to a belief system that includes the demiurge and sometimes it refers to the knowability of truth claims
It's like how lead can mean two different things depending on whether it's a verb or a noun. Crazy, right?
1. Yes.
2. Same reason I don't believe in Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, and Shiva. Or for that matter, Santa Claus, Jack Frost, or the Easter Bunny.
>>836532
Putting God in the same category as the Easter Bunny or Thor suggests that you have no idea what is meant by God.
>>836532
Do you see any frost giants?
Thor is obviously real.
>>836531
So you're saying it's true that they exist, you just believe that there are none?
>>836541
Do you mean the collective unconsciousness?
>>836531
>You never said that you believe that there are no gods
Lack of belief in gods and believing there are no gods is where you're getting confused.
Here's the first definition I found.
>Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."
>>836541
But Thor literally is a god. If you say Thor is silly or nonsensical, then there can be no argument that your particular god is not also as silly.
1. Yes
2. The idea of God always seemed to be vaguely absurd to me. I've never been provided a convincing reason to believe in God, and so continue to not believe in God.
>>836552
He's probably going to give you same vague mumbo jumbo about God being love, or the first cause, or unknowable, which of course will be a justification for believing in Jewish Palestinian zombies.
You fools, you can't prove God doesn't exist like how you can't prove God does exist. You have faith that God doesn't exist, Atheism and organized religion are two sides of the same coin
OPEN YOUR EYES
>>836567
That's what it means when you say disbelief, you're saying it's true that they exist but you just don't believe they exist. That is why atheism isn't a disbelief in a god but a lack of belief in a god. Do you understand now?
>>836567
>Yeah, I've already explained all this. Not gonna bother again. You're just going in circles.
I'm happy to let other anons decide for themselves which makes more sense in terms of describing the beliefs that people actually hold, rather than some stereotype.
>>836573
This.
Fucking painful reading this thread
>>836573
Do you believe in God, anon? Or just disorganized religion?
>>834919
1. Yes.
2. Used to be a devout Christian who idealized Thomism. Realized my arguments were tenuous, converted out.
>>836552
"A god" and the monotheistic conception of God are such massively different concepts that an argument that can be used to dismiss one cannot at all be used to dismiss the other. A pagan god is a singular being with very well defined limitations. They [usually] have a physical body, finite power, and are basically superhuman creatures. The Godhead is essentially an infinite ultimate reality defined as among other things pure actuality and the absolute ground of being. It is described as being completely immaterial and non-temporal, and not composed of any phenomena. The arguments used for its existence are mass abstractions from the nature of the universe as a whole [see: the cosmological argument]. Trying to prove the Christian God by looking for Him, as though he was a physical entity which could be seen is as futile as trying to prove a mathematical statement empirically. Its ridiculous.
>>836562
Doesn't matter, Thor is real, and my patron god. Anything you can say to disprove or discredit him can also be used to discredit whatever erroneous beliefs in a false god you have. So you can either accept that your arguments are wrong, and therefore your belief is wrong, because Thor is real, or you can accept that your belief is wrong, because your own arguments discredit your belief, and since your arguments stem from your belief -which is wrong- they must be wrong and Thor is in fact real.
>>836593
Moses found him physically though
>>836573
Do you believe in Spirtual Animism?
>>836573
Try proving this pink and yellow ogre in my room doesn't exist, he exists outside of space and time but is in everything therefore he's in my room. You can't? You must have faith it doesn't exist, because you can't prove it doesn't.
Not having a position doesn't make you smarter than anyone else, you douchebag.
