I think Scientist Sunset is a qt
>>27189788
Born again Christian shimmer > Fedora tipping atheist scientist shimmer.
Fite me
>>27189830
>shoving your headcanon onto fictional characters
We have to assume that all of the girls are Atheists unless specifically stated that they are mentally disabled or otherwise unintelligent.
>>27189958
>assuming they're atheists when it's never been mentioned
That would be a headcanon retard
>>27189788
>>27190039
Only thing Christians have done is kept science back for thousands of years. We be living in space by now if everyone gave up religion centuries ago.
>>27190068
This is my favorite meme.
>>27190090
Yeah, it's pretty good. Good old 2012 nostalgia.
>>27189788
>implying Sunset that's both a scientist and a Christian isn't better
>>27190190
Edgy as fuck
I don't really a problem with religion by itself. I just don't like the attitude of "mine's obviously right". Because sure, you may feel that the universe doesn't make sense without a god, but it doesn't really guarantee it's the one you believe in, or that there's only one. Zeus and his family are about as likely as to exist as the god described in the bible.
>>27190247
*tips fedora*
>>27190268
That's not being a fedora. A fedora would be a gigantic asshole about it.
>>27190285
A fedora would be a hat.grammer nazi here
>>27189788
>>27190306
The big bang is scientific proof god does not exist.
>>27190068
Are you serious?
No joke lad
>>27190046
Get outta here Glimmer. Sci-Twi and Shimmer don't care for you.
>>27190322
>>27190322
*does exist
>>27190068
>>27190420
>>27190370
>>27190306
Give me your maymay generator.
>>27190420
that grammer though....
>>27190427
It's this image + sony vegas
>>27190427
Here's a template
>>27190420
ayo hol up
so you sayin
WE BE LIVIN IN SPACE N SHIT?!
>>27190420
>the fall of the roman empire happened
>BUT IT WAS THE DARK AGES THAT SET US BACK
>MUH FLAT EARTH (a myth started by an atheist)
>MUH CURVE
>COULD HAVE BEEN EXPLORING SPACE BY NOW
i hate these kinds of people.
>>27190046
I want to massage Glim-Glam's pony pussy.
>>27190499
>implying one atheist speaks for all
most of the thread concerns science invalidating religion, you know
>>27190322
Atheists were quite uncomfortable with the Big Bang theory when it originally came out, as it smacked too much of creationism. The preferred theory among atheists was the "steady-state" universe, kept from collapsing in on itself by a "cosmological constant". This universe was eternal - no beginning, no end - and thus there was no need to explain where it came from or what caused it. But the Big Bang eventually won out, and it is now widely accepted among scientists that the universe indeed has a beginning, and the evidence that it happened is reverberating throughout the cosmos. Nowadays, the popular idea among atheists is to suppose that the universe created itself out of an eternal "pre-existing matter", although the mechanism for how this could have happened is poorly understood, and it is doubtful if it is actually testable - and indeed, even science.
>>27190046
This^
>>27190565
There is still a possibility that the Big Bang was merely one of many Big Bangs, extending infinitely into history. There may be a cycle whereupon the universe and expands and then contracts back into itself, creating and destroying everything inside of it, but still itself exsisting, as an infinite void. I prefer this idea for the reason you stated above: if proven, we would not need to seek any cause for the beginning of the universe to appease creationists.
Of course, it has yet to be proven, and I am forced to follow the evidence. Why do Christians never provide evidence, again?
>>27189958
>or otherwise unintelligent.
many of them don't show traits of above-average intelligence. Since the average person is religious, we can only assume they might as well if they had religion in their world(equestria or equestria girls world)
>>27189788
did you know that she can mathematically prove that you are faggot?
>>27189788
you know, scientist will get that conclusion much much easier:
"Is there any evidence to support this god?"
"There is a book written 2000 years ago"
"Anything other than a scripture that could easily be faked?"
"Uh, no"
"The god of the bible isn't real" Or rather as any atheist who became an atheist after careful researching this topic would instead say "There is no reason to believe the god of the bible is real"
>>27190597
>There may be a cycle whereupon the universe and expands and then contracts back into itself
Nope. Conservation of Energy violation. Next.
>>27190652
Rick and morty referenece?
>>27190632
Does the EQG world contain religion? We do not know
>>27190659
I know, but Christians never accept actual answers like that. It's harder for them to argue if you can disprove specific points of theirs
>>27190674
That doesn't neccesarilly dispove that idea. We don't actually know why the universe is currently expanding. We think it has something to do with dark matter, which we don't know a thing about. It is a possiblility.
>>27190018
>Assuming magic pony is religious at all as opposed to simply not having religious beliefs
>>27190707
>Does the EQG world contain religion? We do not know
exactly
>I know, but Christians never accept actual answers like that.
we are talking about sunset, a scientist, here, not a random christian
>>27190728
Oh yeah, definetley Sunset would be annoyed at such an overly complicated way of disproving a book that doesn't actually need to be disproven.
>>27190707
>here's this stuff we don't understand
>therefore maybe the universe could be eternal
>but saying it was created at some point without immediate proof is unacceptable
>>27190597
what if...this is actually true?
Picture it, is like a lung, inhale...exhale...big bang...and everything goes back to zero
>>27190779
>what if...this is actually true?
THEN...nothing
what would it change about anything? Scientist like to know to know, but other than the mere fulfilling of the desire to understand, there is no real consequence of knowing how the universe started or ends.
Sunset isn't religious
Period
And anyone who says otherwise should just take their autism back to deviantart or whatever shithole they crawled out of
>>27190829
>Actually thinking this is about about pones or EqG.
It's just an excuse for Anons to debate about creationism. Happens every few months or so.
>>27190817
Yeah. I mostly think about it because of the religious signifigance
>>27190864
And also get mad at the religious Sunset meme
>>27190956
there is no real significance towards that either on HOW it started(or ends), just whether it did with the help of god or not. Whether it was the big bang, multiple big bang, always was there or it was aliens that came from a previous universe, none of that changes nothing to you, your children, childrens children, childrens childrens children etc.
HECK, even whether god had a hand in it or not changes nothing as well to you. Do you believe in god because you know he created the universe? I doubt it. People believe in god for various reasons, "Because i think he created the universe" is not one. It's the conclusion, not the reason.
If you REALLY care about your religious beliefs, just try this experiment: Ignore ALL the knowledge you know about god or science. Also be deaf to what people tell you about god or science. Now, go ahead, live your life. THEN you will see what is really real and significant.
>>27189958
>shoving your headcanon onto fictional characters
>Proceeds to do just that
ayy lamo
>>27191017
If atheist are so sure of their beliefs without any proof, how can they say that those who believe in God without proof are wrong?
Checkmate atheist
>>27190247
As someone surrounded by fundamentalist Christians and people who think that humans emanate an energy field, this. Every time they state something so obviously true as fact makes me want to become an hero. Keep your nonsense to yourself, unless we're specifically discussing religion.
>>27190829
>>27190322
The Big Bang Theory simply explains the expansion of the universe into its present form from the very small ball our atoms once were. It makes no claims either way about God.
Science can't say anything about God, because it doesn't deal with the supernatural. It will never disprove the existence of an ethereal sky-daddy, but it can make his existence unnecessary.
Learn to read, faggot.
>>27190597
>Scientific method invented by a Muslim
>Big Bang Theory invented by a Christian
wew lad
>>27191060
>If atheist are so sure of their beliefs
atheist have a LACK of belief in something(particular god)
sure more often than not they believe in the big bang, but that belief has nothing to do with their atheism.
>>27190306
>>27190370
>2016+0
>Still calling it the "big bang"
I bet you call trips to the bathroom "durr, anon go potty"
>>27190726
>>27191127
>how dare you call me out on my bullshit!
Why cant atheist define atheism?
>>27190707
>That doesn't neccesarilly dispove that idea. We don't actually know why the universe is currently expanding. We think it has something to do with dark matter, which we don't know a thing about. It is a possiblility.
It's a possibility, sure. It's also possible that Santa Claus actually exists and lives somewhere in the North Pole.
>>27191128
What the fuck are you on? That's what everyone calls it, even though it sounds retarded and is inaccurate. What do you, prefer, if I way venture to ask?
>>27191146
Atheism is the disbelief in any deities. The end.
>>27190659
>>27190707
Agnostic here
Stop projecting your thought process onto the scientific method
>>27190779
The cyclical universe violates the laws of physics - it requires the creation of energy out of nothing. Although, I suppose you could still believe in it like a religion.
>>27191162
>Atheism is the disbelief in any deities. The end.
So why is it so hard to define when agnostic disagree with atheist?
Look I dunno why I'm dropping this on a religion-based My Little Pony thread that'll probably be deleted soon, but I'm legit curious as to your responses on this.
I don't argue religion usually. I have nothing against religious folk and I find the topic is too messy to bother dealing with. But there is ONE thing, that is the main reason I think there is no God. No one has ever been able to provide me with a response. So if you can break the following question, I 100% want and urge you to do so:
There are billions of people who believe in religion. Who are certain beyond any doubt that their god or gods and the legends surrounding them are very real. There are many, many, many DIFFERENT religions.
My question is...what makes yours any different?
>>27191182
because many people, both who considers themselves agnostic and those who don't, don't know what agnostic means either
>>27191169
Well, to be fair, atheists who aren't just trying to seem edgy will admit that there might be a god, they just won't believe without evidence, and so identify as nonbelievers.
>>27191182
Atheists assume that the supernatural doesn't exist. Agnostics keep the options open by saying "I don't know."
>>27191192
Not the most religious person in the world, but the answer to that would generally be along the lines of "Mine is right."
>>27191169
the two people in the image don't contradict each other
>>27191201
So you admit this?
a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Good to know becuse unless you are agnostic like me the burden of proof is on the atheist as much as it is on the religious
burden of proof
phrase of burden
1.
the obligation to prove one's assertion.
>>27191162
>Atheism is the disbelief in any deities.
True, but ask an atheist what he believes, and he'll tell you he believes the universe created itself, or he believes that there was an eternally preexistent matter that was predestined to explode, or there's an infinite multiverse that you can't see or prove, you just have to have faith, and whatnot. I won't call it nonsense. I'm grown up enough to respect another man's beliefs about the unknowable.
>>27191208
>Atheists assume that the supernatural doesn't exist
wrong, they assume nothing, that's the thing.
You can be agnostic AND atheist, same as agnostic and theist
here, let me break it down for you:
Agnostic Atheist = "I don't know, therefore i don't belief in it"
Gnostic Atheist = "I know there is nothing"
Agnostic Theist = "I don't know, but i belief anyway."
Gnostic Theist = "I know there is a god for reasons"
>>27191231
Atheists don't say that God doesn't exist. They say that they don't believe in God. This is a major difference, as the second one implies that they will gladly and openly accept evidence that there is a God.
>>27191217
>Atheist
>I know my way of thinking is true without proof
>Scientific method: aka agnostic
>We can't prove it so until then, there is no way to really know
Look up what contradiction means
>>27191251
>redefining atheism when a agonistic calls you out
wew lad
>>27191208
>Not the most religious person in the world, but the answer to that would generally be along the lines of "Mine is right."
Ah, but you misunderstand me. I don't really mean to ask what makes your religion different than other religions, per say. What I really mean is -- What is it about your religion that makes it more plausible than thousands of others?
>>27191247
>you just have to have faith
wrong, they belief it because not only makes it logical sense, it also is approved by scientist who used the scientific method to find that shit out, the same scientific method that for the last few centuries has enabled us to create, like, everything from the modern world.
>>27191231
see>>27191251
>>27191268
idiot
>>27191257
>Atheists don't say that God doesn't exist
>Doesn't look through this very thread
Its like you are willfully ignorant
>>27191074
>>27190484
FUCKING FILTHY NIGGERS, WORSE THAN APES I HATE THEM
>>27191262
>I know my way of thinking is true without proof
no atheist said that in the image nor in reallife
LACK of belief, is this word really that difficult to understand for you?
>>27190068
Imagine if our 'religion' and society was focused on education, on science and induction and deduction. Centuries of focus on math and experimentation and invention without persecution.
>>27191192
There are millions of scientific theories out there. What makes M-theory different from superstring theory? Why don't we believe in the theory that heat is a liquid anymore? Why do believe electrons exist even though no one has ever seen one? How do we know for sure there's something inside a black hole if no one can ever look inside?
I dunno, you just have to have a little faith, I guess. Or you can just, not believe in anything.
Me, I figure there's got to be something. The universe didn't create itself.
>>27191162
Scientists have recently started calling it the "Mass Expansion" after it was proposed that instead of exploding after the big crunch the universe would instead re-expand itself with same force it built up during the crunch like an elastic band.
>>27191280
>idiot
Not an argument
You are redefining what a atheist means when I gave the definition of it
Agnosticism is mutually exclusive from atheism.
>Agnostic doesn't have anything to do with or describe anything about belief
>I don't care what the dictionary says I'm using my own definition
>autism
"Agnostic atheist" is just a new atheist attempt to hide behind agnosticism weak wordplay.
To believe something is to accept it as true or valid. In order to do this, you must have knowledge of it. Thus, belief always requires knowledge.
New atheists are really trying to hide behind agnosticism. There's an atheism site, atheism.org that literally says "you can't trust dictionaries to define atheism".
Here this is the site for you
http://atheismplus.com/
>>27191299
>The universe didn't create itself.
when you think like that, SOMETHING had to be created "itself", whether the universe, god, or what was "before" the universe(even though that doesn't make sense with our understanding of physics, as time itself started with the big bang)
>>27191299
Fair answer.
>>27191280
>is proved by scientist
What is proved by scientist? What did they prove?
>>27190285
"being a fedora"
This is what's really cringy - this entire self-loathing internet turned against itself, with indoctrinating circlejerk sessions on what not to do because it's being 'a fedora'.
>>27191293
So >>27191169 all over again
>>27191247
Nigga what? An informed atheist will usually say that the universe formed when the extremely compressed ball of shit started expanding, and eventually gravity mashed it all together and formed shit.
I won't defend the many-world interpretation, as I haven't read up enough to be any use there, but they don't just pull shit out of their ass. Google is your friend, and it would be good to read about things before you talk shit.
>>27191262
This guy explains it well.
>>27191251
>>27191273
At that point they'll usually start talking about miracles or some shit. I'm not the best person to ask about this.
>>27191285
My idea of an atheist is the agnostic atheist which that guy talked about. Gnostic atheists are just edgelords who don't know science.
>>27191299
We know what heat is because we can observe it. We know what an electron is because we can observe what it affects.
>>27191318
Science.
>>27189788
>lives in a realm of literal gods and irl magic
>doubts existence of god in another realm
this is fucking planescape levels of dumb
>>27191289
Oh, the irony
>>27191312
>"you can't trust dictionaries to define atheism".
if you EVER hear anyone say this, punch him in the face. In other words, i belief dictionaries are the common ground for accepting a language to make discussion possible in the first place
i didn't redefine ANYTHING, all what i said i supported by the usual definitions of those words
>idiot
>Not an argument
oh yes, but asserting something that the person didn't say as a quote and then topping it with
>wew lad
is an argument?
>>27191318
approved, not proved, learn english
>approve: officially agree to or accept as satisfactory.
>>27191343
>This guy explains it well.
And I callled him out on it here >>27191312
>My idea of an atheist is the agnostic atheist which that guy talked about. Gnostic atheists are just edgelords who don't know science.
Redefining atheism to fit your narrative how typical
dictionaries are your friend
>>27191343
>We know what an electron is because we can observe what it affects.
Oh, so you want me to believe that there are "invisible particles" called "electrons" that I can't see but we know that they're there because we have indirect evidence that they must exist?
>>27191348
Can you provide sources for your claim other than saying "science"?
>>27191355
>lives in a realm of literal gods
nice headcanon
but wait, maybe i'm wrong, let me count the times any being has ever being described as a god or put on the same level as a god in the show
hm...interesting, very nice....oh, ZERO times
>>27191382
You still can't prove your "invisible particles" exist.
>>27191374
>oh yes, but asserting something that the person didn't say as a quote and then topping it with
>idiot
Nice use of Tu quoque there
Stop redefining atheism
Wew..........OP here for the first time since >>27190190
Glad to see my thread has been going good
>>27191398
It's SCIENCE. If you don't understand it, that just means you're stupid.
>>27191417
Yeah, the agnostic and atheist are fighting with each other
good show
>>27191422
>It's SCIENCE. If you don't understand it, that just means you're stupid.
So provide the sources for your claim
If it is "Science" then you can find the theory or hypothesis that attempted to prove this
>>27191385
Fucking yes, I do expect you to believe that. Indirect evidence is still evidence. Literally all our scientific understanding as a species supports electrons as definitely being in the 'they are a thing' category, whereas we have never seen scientific proof of any god whatsoever. If we had, no one would be atheist.
>>27191385
This motherfucker doesn't believe in electrons.
Alright, riddle me this, Batman. What's casting those shadows through cathode rays? Why does rubbing amber on fur cause it to stick to things? What gives a negative charge to an atom? What causes atoms to bond? What is even electricity?
And if electrons don't exist, why don't you do your own independent research and give us another theory that accounts perfectly for all of these things?
Read a book, nigger.
>>27191415
nice argument,
oh wait, you didn't do one again
>Tu quoque
it's not that though, but of course you would use such a reason to not have a proper discussion. You must have learned that word in "talk like you are smart even if you are not"-class and decided "Hah, whenever someone calls me out on my hypocrisy, i will just call To quoque on him and win instantly! I'm so smart"
>>27191412
Science can't prove, only falsify incorrect theories.
>>27191461
>nice argument,
>oh wait, you didn't do one again
Glad you admit it
Acceptance is the first step to recovery
>it's not that though, but of course you would use such a reason to not have a proper discussion. You must have learned that word in "talk like you are smart even if you are not"-class and decided "Hah, whenever someone calls me out on my hypocrisy, i will just call To quoque on him and win instantly! I'm so smart"
A question begging epithet is your rebuttal?
Not seeing a argument in any part of that post
You believe in a god, presumably, because that is what your parents have taught you since you were born. Who is more likely to be right? Your parents? Or generations of scientists and other intellectual minds whose JOB it is to find impartial, unbiased answers to this stuff through research and scientific analysis?
Have the humility to believe others who know things you don't.
>>27191455
>>27191457
You sound like the Christians who go, "Oh yeah? Well, if God doesn't exist, then what caused the Big Bang?" or "Oh yeah? If God doesn't exist, then why is the universe so perfect that if it were altered even a millionth of a degree, we would instantly cease to exist?" or "Oh yeah? If God doesn't exist, then how come the Weak Nuclear Force exists solely to cause nuclear fusion to occur so that the sun will shine so that life will exist?" or "Oh yeah? If God doesn't exist, then why are stars seemingly designed to not only occur in the first place, but collapse and explode with just enough force to send their life-sustaining elements light years out to other stars where they form into planets?" or "If God doesn't exist, then how come back holes seem designed to pull billions of stars together into galaxies while simultaneously ensuring that they are not all destroyed by pushing them away with cosmic jets so that galaxies will exist and stars will be grouped close enough together to shoot all their life-sustaining crap into other stars?" or
so and so on and so on and so on
>>27191524
>You just believe in God because you were told to
Why do smart people say such incredibly stupid things? What about Atheists who were raised Catholic? Why don't they believe what their parents taught them? What about Catholics who were raised by atheists? Why don't they believe whatever their parents told them to believe or not believe? Why are there Democrats who were raised by Republicans and horsefuckers who were raised by Christians? Would you please think about what you say before you say it so you won't say something as fucking stupid as,
>"Children just believe whatever their parents believe!!!!!!!!!!"
>>27191559
Those are completely unrelated. We're giving examples of scientific proof for the electron.
We're showing why we can tell that something is there with all the properties of an electron.
They're just throwing out things that happen and claim it's too convenient to not be God.
Once again, what do you think causes everything that electrons supposedly do?
Hell, by your logic, gravity doesn't exist and the Earth is flat.
>>27191559
Questions like this don't understand prior probability. Of course the universe seems perfectly suited to us, because happen to exist. Because we can only exist in the universes that are suited to us. No matter how small the probability of our universe is, that fact that it is here and we live in it is the granting of that probability.
Just like how the probability of getting 50 heads in a row on a coin toss is small, but once you have 49 heads, the next flip remains 50-50.
>>27191409
>this asshurt
hey anon, got a rope over here. I suggest you use it to hang yourself
FUCKING REKT
>>27189788
I think she is going to be beheaded as an infidel, because she lives in a socialist country, and they be importing thousands of ISIS cell members.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nIN6Ciw1Ws
The soldiers of god come for you infidel, your blood shall stain your sinful streets.
>>27191631
I'm on your side, but for those who are interested, the chances of you getting head 50 times is 0.00000000000008881784197001252%.
He's right though, last flip is still 50%. Just thought that statistic was interesting.
>>27191657
>>27191631
>The Anthropic Principle
>"The Universe is perfect because if it wasn't perfect, it wouldn't be perfect. The Universe exists because if it didn't exist, it wouldn't exist."
You do realize the anthropic principle is a truism? A logical fallacy?
> As such, they are criticized as an elaborate way of saying "if things were different, they would be different," which is a valid statement, but does not make a claim of some factual alternative over another.
>>27191710
You do realize logic is about tautologies?
>>27191710
You dumb cunt.
If the universe wasn't suited for life as we know it, say because the speed of light was a bit different and as a result the entire universe was nothing but hydrogen due to the lack of enough force to bond them, then we would not exist. By default, the universe has to, by chance, be suitable for life as we know it to exist, because life as we know it exists.
It's like saying that humans can reproduce even if you haven't ever seen evidence, because you know humans have existed far longer than the lifespan of one human.
>>27191631
>You see, we can only exist where we can exist.
>>27191642
>Oh shit, someone proved me wrong
>Better call him butthurt, that will teach him!
>>27191743
>The universe has to exist, because if it didn't exist, it wouldn't exist!
I have to be talking to you right now, because if I wasn't talking to you, I wouldn't be talking to you.
I have to be drinking chocolate milk, because if I wasn't drinking chocolate milk, I wouldn't be drinking chocolate milk.
I have to be typing this, because if I wasn't typing this, I wouldn't be typing this.
>>27191744
That was my point. Good reading comprehension.
When people try to argue intelligent design because of how perfect the universe is for us, that is wrong because we can only exist where we can only exist. Therefore, you can't use the fact that we exist in a place where we can exist as argument that that place must have been made for us. It is not evidence.
Everyone is so desperate to believe they're clever.
>>27191784
If the universe was different, but still hospitable to some form of life other than that was we know it, we wouldn't exist, and they would. However, the universe is hospitable to us. We can tell because we exist. It's very simple.
The problem he had was creationists claiming this utter obviousness as proof of intelligent design.
>>27191799
I guess saying "We exist because we exist" just isn't a satisfactory enough answer for most people. Because it doesn't really explain anything.
The anthropic principle is not evidence for any viewpoint because it is a prior, which any viewpoints must assume to begin with. Its purpose is to rule out a certain type of argument.
>>27191929
Shut up, faggot.
>>27191945
Okay I guess you win sorry
>>27191192
Have you ever heard of perennialism?
>>27192092
No, but thanks to the modern invention of the internet now I have. Dunno why you bring it up though.
>>27192211
It asserts that nearly all religions contain some degree of truth. So that when one claims to be THE true faith, it isn't totally incorrect.
Personally I'm Catholic, and was convinced by reading Aquinas and Augustine. Reading Guenon helped unify everything.
>>27192270
That's.......not perennialism. Also, just because you say all religions have some truth doesn't mean they do. Provide evidence, please.
>>27189788
We /pol/ now?
i just wanted to be the 140th poster
>>27192306
wedon't/pol/ now
>positivists
For people who worship science, you fuckers sure like to jump to conclusion on religion without a basic understanding of theology
>>27190018
Atheist is the default position. Until somebody learns about a religion or invents a new one to explain how and why things are like they are they lack any belief in a deity. Taking that into account and the fact evidence of religion in Equestria is practically non‐existent it would be presumptuous to assume Equestria has religion of any kind.
Yeah, there is that singular instance of a priest in that one episode but the conspicuous absence of anything religious even being mentioned in passing throughout the entire series (let alone the incongruity of a bunch of talking horses believing in Christianity on a world where humanity never existed) kind of speaks against it. Hell, it could just be that Equestrian funeral directors wear the same outfit a priest does in our universe.
>>27190217
You’re using that word wrongly. Trolling isn’t edgy.
>>27191618
He said presumably, as in, most likely. He never said it was a certainty. He was merely pointing out that people typically share a majority of their beliefs with whoever taught them. He was probably banking on you not being an idiot and realizing that no parent allows somebody to teach their child that X religion is true if they themselves do not believe it.
>>27192670
Eh, it’s more lazy generalization than actually disagreeing with him. Saying “God doesn’t exist” is a lot more pithy than “Most Christians believe in a version of God with mutually exclusive traits; any such version of God doesn’t exist.”
>>27192670
>defending Christianity
>posts Hume, an atheist
>>27190190
*tips pentagram*
>All of this discussion
>not just headcanoning the showrunners and show history into a patheon for these fictional characters to believe in your story, since it will make the EqG world become richer in narrative, thus creating some good plot hooks or intresting situation for you to further indulge in it
Applejack and SciTwi are Faustian, follower of the original belief from the first religious reform
Rainbow Dash belief in the Fandoms, a mixture of belief thrown together to fill the gaps left when the previous reformer dies
Pinkie, Rarity, and Flutters are Meghanist, the last great religious reformer that was backed by the ruling dynasty
Sunset wont be swayed by alien beliefs, and retains her old one from Equestria, whatever it is
>>27193592
>Atheist is the default position
But you are wrong
See >>27191136
>>27189788
>>27191136
Ponies confirmed to have an equivalent of Christianity, if not some organized religion, meaning its mirror world has organized religion too, maybe even another equivalent of Christianity.
“Wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists.” - Joseph de Maistre
Atheism is a communist tactic anyway.
>>27194319
Atheists have the highest kill count thanks to madmen like pol pot and Stalin. They reject religion so they reject morals. They have a double standard too. Wherever a Christian does something terrible, he did it because of his religion, but when an atheist does something terrible, he did because he's a terrible person. Atheists have never admitted someone did something terrible in the name of atheism, that flat out deny it.
>>27192285
>Perennialism is a perspective within the philosophy of religion which views each of the world’s religious traditions as sharing a single, universal truth on which foundation all religious knowledge and doctrine has grown. According to this view, each world religion, including but not limited to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Sikhism, and Buddhism, is an interpretation of this universal truth adapted to cater for the psychological, intellectual, and social needs of a given culture of a given period of history. The universal truth which lives at heart of each religion has been rediscovered in each epoch by saints, sages, prophets, and philosophers. These include not only the 'founders' of the world's great religions but also gifted and inspired mystics, theologians, and preachers who have revived already existing religions when they had fallen into empty platitudes and hollow ceremonialism.
I'm not inclined to contribute more towards materialists with shitty reading reading comprehension.
>>27194338
Exactly. You good anon found the modus operandi of communists and atheists. Truly a shame there's no more of the one atheist friend I have who actually knows science as we know it is Christian in nature and even memorized sections of the bible, but simply chose not to believe; he can even lecture better than me on how the "Christian dark ages", "held back science" and other myths are inane.
>>27194057
>Pinkie
>Not in the cult of Larson
>>27190659
Have you ever read one book by Leibnitz?
Atheists are useful idiots for the NWO.
>>27189788
>seperating Western science and Christianity
wew lad, nice meme
>>27191559
>I don't believe in electrons
At this point I'm convinced you're an atheist false-flagging. No one can be that stupid.R-right?
>>27195005
meant for
>>27191385
>>27191299
>>27193592
Agnostic here
It's hilarious seeing you accuse others what you yourself are guilty of
>muh feelings validate me
>you are wrong
"Why is it wrong? "
>because I say so
An argumentum ad lapidem is not a argument
You have yet to put forth a single argument
From your post your are very emotional, have impotent rage, autistic and accusative but refuse to be held up to your own standards
So typical stereotypical autistic atheist
If you can prove your thought process
I'll believe you
Back them up with facts and sources
Until then, the burden of proof is on you as much as it is on the religious
And dont try to redefine atheism
>inb4 fencesitting coward
I dont and wont subscribe to your atheistic dogma
By the way, agnostic is the moat scientific position not atheism
>>27190632
>the average person is religious
Murrica pls
>eqg
>shimmerfaggotry
>at all
>ever
>>27195113
Everyone is born atheist till they learn about religion. Theists are responsible for proving me wrong, checkmate theists.
Just read Thomas Aquinas, guys.
>>27190039
>all Christfags are Hamites
wew to the lad
>>27194526
Larson is one of Meghan's Script/Bible translators to the modern audience anon. Its still considered to be a part of Meghanism
>>27195220
Doesn't this statement imply that atheism is a position of ignorance? Why would you want that?
>>27195220
Can you prove anything you say?
Lets see thise facts and sources
I already told you I won't accept a question begging epithet because it is not a argument
Plus there is a glaring hole in your logic
If everyone is born atheist, then how did religion come to be?
>>27195473
*those*
>>27195220
Everyone is born not knowing that the earth is round, or that a world outside his crib exists.
>>27195176
Hi, Sweden.
>>27191299
>There are millions of scientific theories out there. What makes M-theory different from superstring theory?
Theories never claim to be laws
>Why don't we believe in the theory that heat is a liquid anymore?
After a theory has gone through the scientific method multiple times by multiple parties, it's generally considered a law (ie Gravity). Heat as a liquid was a way of explaining that phenomena until a better one presented itself.
>Why do believe electrons exist even though no one has ever seen one?
Because we see the repeatable impact of that conclusion in experiments (ie chemistry)
>How do we know for sure there's something inside a black hole if no one can ever look inside?
Because we know how black holes are created, from dying stars that acquire too much mass and reach a point of no return.
You don't need to "see" something in order to believe it's there. You can believe whatever you want and I will never talk against your beliefs to your face. But as soon as I here some faggot tell me, a mid-20s engineer, that I'm just in a confused phase, I will rip that faggot a new asshole.
>>27195473
Religion came to be by civilizations wanting to find an explanation for that which they could not readily explain. The Greeks would tell amazing stories of how every facet of the earth was essentially a different god. Nowadays, some people are satisfied with stories and desire to pursue explanations about how matter and physics works on a fundae level.
>>27195630
Again, when you claim something back it up with facts and sources
I won't take your word for it
And you just admitted atheism is from ignorance.
You might wanna think more thoughtfully before you post again
>>27195601
I seriously doubt you can beat anyone up internet tuff guy
>>27195667
I meant that metaphorically, by means or arguments
>>27195651
I wasn't >>27195220, I was just trying to answer the question you posed in >>27195473, keyword "trying". I won't claim to have proof for the answer I gave, I was just sharing my personal thoughts. I don't think any of the questions asked in this thread will ever have universal answers, unless we finally get time travel.
>>27195679
So basically, a shouting match where both sides claim they are right and the other is wrong without any proof to back up either side?
To drop the name of Karl Popper or (more fashionably) Thomas Kuhn:
There is no absolute truth. Your scientific truths are merely hypotheses that
have so far failed to be falsified, destined to be superseded. At worst, after the
next scientific revolution, today's 'truths' will seem quaint and absurd, if not
actually false. The best you scientists can hope for is a series of
approximations which progressively reduce errors but never eliminate them.
The Popperian heckle partly stems from the accidental fact that
philosophers of science are traditionally obsessed with one piece of
scientific history: the comparison between Newton's and Einstein's
theories of gravitation. It is true that Newton's inverse square law has
turned out to be an approximation, a special case of Einstein's more
general formula. If this is the only piece of scientific history you know,
you might indeed conclude that all apparent truths are mere approximations,
fated to be superseded. There is even a quite interesting sense
in which all our sensory perceptions - the 'real' things that we 'see with
our own eyes' - may be regarded as unfalsified 'hypotheses' about the
world, vulnerable to change. This provides a good way to think about
illusions such as the Necker Cube. The flat pattern of ink on paper is compatible with two alternative
'hypotheses' of solidity. So we see a solid cube which, after a few seconds,
'flips' to a different cube, then flips back to the first cube, and so on.
Perhaps sense data only ever confirm or reject mental 'hypotheses'
about what is out there.
>>27195721
Not a argument
No sources
No facts
Dismissed
Your personal thoughts have no merits to a scientific position
>>27195748
>The best you scientists can hope for is a series of approximations which progressively reduce errors but never eliminate them.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I always want to be in pursuit of what is most likely correct, even though I know the true answer will likely elude me. The ones to come next will use my work to further their own and hopefully apply it to society in some meaningful way. Nothing would make me happier.
>There is even a quite interesting sense
in which all our sensory perceptions - the 'real' things that we 'see with our own eyes' - may be regarded as unfalsified 'hypotheses' about the world, vulnerable to change
I actually quite like that.
>>27195774
Never claimed to be having a scientific discussion. Honestly this is a thread more about philosophy than about science. But I'll understand if you don't want to reply anymore, I'm getting sick of this myself, not really my forte.
>>27190068
If it wasn't for the sky cake we would never have be able to form larger societies, nigga.
Surely you can appreciate the fact that humans are animals and without some form of moral self control we wouldn't be able to function outside of a small hunter-gatherer group and in such large megagroups of hundreds or thousands.
Religion had its place in history.
>>27195859
Fair enough, it laid the groundwork for civilization today. I just wish it was more acceptable to no longer follow it where I live.
>>27195601
>You don't need to "see" something in order to believe it's there
Oh so you want me to believe in something with no evidence?
If it wasn't for you Christians holding back science, we would be in spaceships in space by now!
>>27195900
I think you misunderstood, by "seeing" I meant with the naked eye. There's many phenomena that are only observable through a secondary means, such as electronmicroscopes, temperature probes, etc. I guess that observing data reported by instruments could be considered "seeing" so my earlier metaphor doesn't really workalso, I wasn't trying to argue for believing in something with no reason, I'm against that
>>27190190
this tbqhfam
>>27195829
Just pointing out the flaws in your reasoning that you will verbally beat someone down when you have no proof to back it up same for your opponent
Agnostic is the most scientific position to have
Not atheism
>>27189788
>atheism
>not a communist tactic
>defending communism
Stalin would be proud of you
>>27196017
>Agnostic is the most scientific position to have. Not atheism
You're right, I'll think about that, but I think my definitions are a little skewed. I thought Gnosticism versus agnosticism was a modifier that you apply on top of what you believe. ie an agnostic atheist doesn't believe in any deities but is open to the idea if evidence points to such a conclusion? And a Gnostic one would never believe in a deity regardless of evidence?
>>27196108
>Agnostic atheism
>atheism=agnosticism
a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Dictionaries are your friend
Agnosticism is mutually exclusive from atheism.
>Agnostic doesn't have anything to do with or describe anything about belief
>I don't care what the dictionary says I'm using my own definition
>autism
"Agnostic atheist" is just a new atheist attempt to hide behind agnosticism weak wordplay.
To believe something is to accept it as true or valid. In order to do this, you must have knowledge of it. Thus, belief always requires knowledge.
New atheists are really trying to hide behind agnosticism. There's an atheism site, atheism.org that literally says "you can't trust dictionaries to define atheism".
Atheist plus I think
>>27190370
Literally wut? A god could easily have set the big bang in motion.
>>27196142
Thank you for the correction, I haven't spoken about this topic in a while so I guess you could call knowledge of the definitions dated.
>>27196142
Thank you for the correction, I haven't discussed this topic in years so my knowledge on the definitions is datedand sadly influenced by the place of euphoria, though I care not such place
>>27196163
>>27196271
I blame my shitty cell connection for the double post, first didn't appear after 10 minutes
>>27196142
Atheist plus is just SJW bullshit, which is what modern atheism is. Atheism has become the Fedora tipping science fetishing intolerant of religion butthurt prone asshole stereotype and don't even realize it.
>>27196432
Atheists and SJWs are brothers in spirit, and both are useful idiots alongside the larpagans
MORE intellectually dishonest fedora tippers!
My hunger for people who never ever read Leibnitz, Heisenberg or Luther can't be sated, for I need the salt of the agnostics!
>>27196835
But anon, you're Fedora tipping as well!
>>27196941
Joke's on you: I have one!
And a Bible, and one of Heisenberg's works.
>>27197000
I disagree with you, but respect your opinion and how you came to that conclusion!
>>27197027
Same.
One of my best friend is resilient to my methods to convert im, but he hates nothing more than "intellectually dishonest atheists", defining them as "atheists until a plane crash" and "never read anything on theology". We use to have really long debates on what God is. I prefer Leibnitz' incontingency.
>>27190190
the cross should be upside down on that book
>>27191147
It's also possible that your consciousness and memories are an illusion in your head that was generated 5 minutes ago.
Wow, scrolling through this shit for a moment I almost forgot where I am.
