So atheists,
Show me the evidence?
Where's the evidence?
>>73158471
matter cannot be destroyed or created. Therefore any thing that doesn't abide by that cannot exist.
Evidence of what?
>>73158525
>58525▶
>>>73158471 (OP)
>matter cannot be destroyed or created. Therefore any thing that doesn't abide by that cannot exist.
That's not the evidence.
Show me the evidence.
>>73158471
I think it's up your ass
>>73158633
>>>
> Anonymous
That's not nice. I don't think you have any evidence.
Show me the evidence.
>>73158577
You refuse to believe that proof? Well then you cannot be argued with since you deny fact. In other news you owe me money, and I demand you prove otherwise. aka organized religion.
You are funny. You're smart and Vegemite is real food.
>>73158525
>matter cannot be destroyed or created
actually total energy is conserved not mass, matter is often created and destroyed in particle-antiparticle pairs.
For the current model of physics to be accurate an infinitesimal square of empty vacuum space could lead to another big bang explosion with a whole new universe.
So what do you believe goy? Someone created the universe, or billions of universe can spring out of vacuum space indefinitely, creating more vacuum space and more universes like a fractal pattern going forever.
It's infinity both ways.
>>73158471
>that lady
remember watching that video years ago. never seen a more delusional, programmed person in all my life. she might be a reptile.
>>73158525
Then explain jews
>>73158471
evidence: you can be almost infinitely evil and no bad things happen to you, moreover you have a REALLY nice life
>>73158471
There is no hard evidence, because you can't prove a negative (i.e. that god doesn't exist). Can you prove that fairies don't exist?
>>73160005
do gay people exist
>>73158525
Actually there are particles which randomly pop into existence.
How can you prove a negative
Prove me unicorns don't exist
>>73159418
actually AKTUALLY
matter=energy. So if ones conserved, then so is the other one. Any other questions?
>>73160069
They do. Here's one:
>>73160069
>>73160154
am i supposed to be offended by this, most /pol/lacks are gay...
last time we had a /pol/ meetup i topped a kiwi, was it you?
>>73160138
>particles that follow classical mechanical principles = quasi-particles that follow quantum mechanical principles
hue?
>>73159138
It's time to stop posting Brazil... you've got better things to do
>I've seen you in all the other threads tonight
>>73159402
>aka organized religion.
>>73158471
>>73158577
>>73159189
>what is burden of proof
>>73158471
I love when Dawkins flat-out says she can see it in the museum and she just doesn't even register that he spoke.
>>73160310
I love when Dawkin's mother is Jewish but he pointedly never talks about that fact.
Every year, the chosenness shows more and more.
>>73160245
>asks if gay people exist
>refers to the existence of gay people
Pick one.
>>73160300
>Don't feed the troll my child. The lady in OP's pic is a well known crazy. OP knows religion is crazy.
>>73158471
There is no evidence of religion, that is why people are atheist you numbskull. If we had evidence of there being a god/no god, then we wouldn't have to call it anything
>>73160138
>what is quantum electrodynamics
>what is virtual particle
>what is vacuum energy
>babbys physics undergraduate TRIGGER WARNING
>looked at that video for 20 seconds
>now my suggested videos is filled with fedora shit
>>73160127
The unicorn is the national animal of Scotland fampai, it definitely exists.
>>73160672
Scotland doesn't exist dude
Atheists are stupid they claim their beliefs are "scientific".
But they are not as any other religion they base their beliefs on absolutely nothing or at best the lack of evidence for the other side.
What they don't realize is that every claim made about the existence or non existence of a God is completely stupid and pointless.
There is no evidence either way and no scientist who should be taken seriously will tell you that "God definitely does not exist".
>>73160869
Northern UK on suicide watch.
>>73160467
>literally nothing.
>>73160248
>more nothing.
>>73160295
>best response yet, tips fedora, M'lady.
>>73158471
they dont have evidence.
agnostic master race m8
>you dont have fossils of every single generation from monkey to human spanning millions of years, so you have literally no evidence!
christfags are clinically retarded
>>73158471
Religion makes a claim.
Random person says 'ok, prove it'.
Religion says 'where's the evidence?'.
Random person calls OP a faggot for asking for demanding evidence for their own claim from someone who didn't make a claim.
kys OP
>>73161022
Burden of proof goes both ways.
One side bases there beliefs on nothing.
The other bases their beliefs on the non existence of evidence.
It's like saying x is wrong because it has not been proven right.
Do you think that is what scientists do?
If they here a theory which they have absolutely no reason to believe it is falls do they dismiss it because it hasn't been proven otherwise?
>>73158471
The evidence is that no God could create this world, except the most sadistic fuckup. So even if your God exists, you should be cursing him, instead of venerating him.
>>73161450
>If they here a theory which they have absolutely no reason to believe it is falls do they dismiss it because it hasn't been proven otherwise?
If it cant be tested, yes.
>christcucks are this dumb
The fuck happened to you germany?
Why are all of you dumbass christfags all of a sudden right when you start cucking yourselves? I thought christianity was supposed to be against islam. Why are you all such cucks
>>73161450
Right now there is a teapot circling around the sun along with earth, prove me wrong
This statement is exactly what religious people use to justify their "arguments", no proof and use lack of evidence against them as evidence for their claim.
>>73159138
>ayyyyyy lmao
>>73161565
Here's your evidence.
God cannot be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful.
Justice is everyone getting exactly what they deserve.
Mercy is the suspension of justice.
You can't perfectly give everyone what they deserve while also perfectly not giving people what they deserve.
Do you have evidence that the gods of every other religion ever don't exist?
>>73161594
>christcucks
Every religion including atheism and Christianity is inherently stupid. There is no point in discussing something that has no evidence either way.
>>73161605
Atheist are doing exactly the same thing.
Assuming something without evidence is unscientific and stupid.
>>73161673
>Justice is giving everyone exactly what they deserve
It's like you read the first book of The Republic and stopped there.
No credible scientist is a self-proclaimed atheist because a lot of science comes down to faith in the unknown and your challenge in discovering it within a STRICT set of rules and guidelines called the scientific method. In much the same regards religion acts as a faith based philosophy in discovering God and spirituality within a STRICT set of rules and guidelines called religious doctrine.
In fact the Scientific Method was invented by a devout Muslim, and probably rediscovered by Jesuit priests hundreds of years later.
It is only a poor education and a misrepresentation of the facts that paints any field of science as some infallible all knowing or even rational space. At the bleeding edge of research a lot of it is just the personal bias and pet theories of the people involved, often their egos and the finance politics get in the way and set back research for decades.
The best example of this is Chomsky vs the behaviorists in the 50s which set back neuroscience for 60 years but gave a big push to computation theories and jump started the information technological age.
We now know that Chomsky was wrong and that you can predict a lot of human activity on prior human activity, there is a continuity in decision and action. Look at how much wealth was generated just in the past 2 decades on the financial markets from people exploiting this very fact and using computers to trade on human impulses.
The side effect of this? Mental Health treatments and psychology has been woo-woo science for the same past 60 years with no real treatments for the mentally ill and a constant push into drug therapies that dull neural and cortical activity in the hopes of sedating the patient to descale the problem.
>>73162257
No, they are not doing the same thing. Christfags are making a claim. Their claim is that god exists. Atheists ask for proof of this claim, they can provide no proof, only stating that it is impossible to prove otherwise.
This is not a rational argument. The atheist does not need proof that god doesn't exist in order to refute the claim that god does exist, because the claim that god does exist is in itself a baseless claim.
>>73162554
>psychology
>""""""science""""""
Please don't be an idiot. Anything softer than biology is barely science to begin with. Even biology is pushing it. Hard science is knowable and provable, no faith required.
>inb4 any reference to any uncertainty principles
fuck off non-STEM
>>73158471
Where's the evidence of your deity of choice?
>>73158525
"matter" only exists if there is someone there to observe it
>>73162554
You're an idiot
>>73158471
Straya pls, its not our responsibility to tidy up your emotion based thoughts. Be a good guy and go back to BBQing.
>>73162586
So atheists have the right to call a claim truth and theists not.
There is NO evidence either way both are making assumptions and calling it truth.
>>73162892
No you fucking idiot because the statement "god exists" is the claim being made. The BURDEN OF PROOF lies with the party making the claim.
If Christfags can't prove their claim is true, then its a baseless claim. Atheists do not have to prove the claim is false, because the burden of proof is not on them, as they did not make the initial claim.
Honestly this isn't fucking complicated you mongoloid.
>>73162257
says the agnostic christcuck shitstain who follows Christianity but thinks islam is also going to lead people to heaven
you are cancer to western civilization
>>73158471
My evidence is shut the fuck up.
>>73163066
>agnostic christcuck
Don't contradict yourself too hard.
I hate Every Religion especially Islam and Atheism.
>>73163031
No you fucking idiot because the statement "god does not exist" is the claim being made. The BURDEN OF PROOF lies with the party making the claim.
If Atheists can't prove their claim is true, then its a baseless claim. Christians do not have to prove the claim is false, because the burden of proof is not on them, as they did not make the initial claim.
Honestly this isn't fucking complicated you mongoloid.
>>73160295
wow he must be a master hacker to program a calculator to say stupid shit while wearing a fedora
>>73163367
I understand you're an idiot but try to follow along here
"God does not exist" cannot logically be the original claim. It cannot exist in a vacuum. If I travelled to a foreign land that had no concept of a god, and in that foreign land made the claim "god does not exist", people would rightly ask what the hell god is. You cannot have ~P without first having P. ~P is the negation of P. ~P follows from P, but this cannot work in reverse.
The original claim can ONLY be "god exists", and thus the burden of proof lies on those making that claim.
>>73163031
Is there a particular reason why only "Christfags" are wrong and none of the other religions? Or if the other religions are equally as wrong why are they never mentioned?
>Being so much of a good goy and reddit tier edgy that you'll only call a predominately white religion because it's the only race you can call out without needing to worry about repercussions
Your kind are definitions of the Dunning-Kruger effect, no wonder you voted in a walking meme.
>>73163721
Are you really that stupid?
All Atheists can do to proof they are right is to tell others they have the burden of proof.
There is NO basis for the claims they make and lack of evidence is NOT evidence.
>>73163966
All religions are wrong, it's just that this is an English language imageboard and the majority of English speakers are some denomination of Christian so the rest sort of fall to the wayside.
>>73162782
this is a meme you have been brainwashed into believing. Hard science is just as problematic at the smaller scales as the soft sciences are at the larger human scale. It is different that religion, but it is neither a suitable replacement nor does it answer any of the big important questions. For example, why do humans have a need to know and explore? Which is at the core of all scientific endeavor.
>>73162858
This is a conditioned response, you are replying in an emotional way much the same as a religious fundamentalist would respond if you told them their religion is WRONG and god DOESNT EXIST.
You replaced your faith in god with faith in science and stopped right there. Except what you think is science is a fantasy scenario, what it is in reality is:
>corruption
>falsified data
>political meddling
>a lot of ass kissing and group think
>dissatisfied silent majority which puts up with it to get ahead
A lot of us have grown more and more disillusioned with how much ascientific and political a lot of questionable (both ethical and procedural) topics have been pushed by people with no clue what they are talking about. They have simply hijacked topics for populist reasons and to jam through legislation.
I can defend my position confidently, but I doubt the majority of people here are open to a discussion and are rather seeking others to hold and justify their own biased positions.
>>73158471
"that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
You show us the evidence of god faggot
Otherwise show me the evidence your mother doesn't shove pineapples up her cunt for fun
>>73158471
Burden of proof, faggot.
>>73158471
Yeah fucking retarded atheists!
Prove to me that there aren't Zeus!
Check m8!
>>73164086
>All atheists can do to prove they are right is to tell others they have the burden of proof
What? Are you trolling me or are you actually this thick? If you want to make a claim, you need to be able to substantiate that claim. If you can't, then your claim is false. This is how rational discourse works.
>>73164176
>problematic
Stopped reading right there.
>>73158471
>Show me the evidence?
>Where's the evidence?
I answer a question no when others answer it yes. My personal stance doesn't require your approval.
>>73164342
>What? Are you trolling me or are you actually this thick? If you want to make a claim, you need to be able to substantiate that claim. If you can't, then your claim is false. This is how rational discourse works.
Exactly that is what I'm saying.
Atheists and theists both can't give evidence for their claims or substantiate it in any way.
>>73159402
You realize you don't have to drop money in the plate, right? Church is just a lot like government; if you're going to keep using the services, it's only fair to chip in a bit to maintain them.
>>73164573
Once again you've made the same mistake. Only one party is making a claim. The other is merely dismissing the unsubstantiated claim.
For example, I claim that you fuck yourself in the ass with a baseball bat. Prove to me that you have never fucked yourself in the ass with a baseball bat, or admit that you do it.
>>73158471
Can't prove a negative.
>>73158471
saying there's no god is like someone saying they have no parents and just randomly appeared on earth
>>73165043
>>73164176
Are you a grad student or involved in academic research in any way? I'm just an undergrad but I landed a summer job helping some researchers and planned on getting a feel for the environment before pursuing my masters but if research is really that political then is it worth it? I always thought that research was a safe haven from all that bullshit
>>73166266
I'm finishing up my PhD this year in high energy lasers and getting out of academia asap. I have a defense contract in place already and will shift into the private sector by 2017, still doing the same work but free from the funding bullshit.
Research is always worth doing, just know that a big part of it is getting funding and here in Australia you gotta suck a lot of dick especially with our anti-science muh Christianity Liberal government which is defunding a lot of the CSIRO, they just cut something like 3500 jobs studying on climate change so those guys are shit out of luck.
In America funding for sciences is much better, just be passionate and do something useful.
A lot of university academics is a rigged game, where you need to publish x amount of papers a year to justify the grant money coming your way. I'm not saying a lot of junk gets published because of a good old boys network looking out for each other and peer reviewing their own shit, but that's exactly what I'm saying.
Take the time now and read some of the papers put out by the people you will assist, if you show some initiative they can help you progress even if your grades might not be the best. It will also tell you if they are full of shit and just getting by or are actually interested in solving a problem.
That bullshit you're trying to escape creeps into everything, sorry to break it to you friend.
>>73164342
canadians always cuck the hardest, fedoratip.
There's a lot of talk going on in this thread, but im yet to see any evidence.
>>73165310
That's very fucking ironic if you're catholic/Christian.
Also, this whole thread is satire, ofcourse there's evidence you christcucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14jEhdqa5Z4
I wonder if 4chan can ever discuss this topic, EVER, without using the term 'fedora' or images of guys with fedoras in place of an actual argument.
Will we ever see the day that happens? Not sure, doubt it though.
>>73158471
>shifting the burden of proof
indeed, where IS the evidence???
>>73165310
yeh totally agree with you, my parents are also undetectable in any way and they made me from nothing by just talking into the void
>>73165310
Inb4 you are christian and there were many religions before yours, ALL HAIL THOR
If hypothetically God or magic did exist; then if it were all to /stop/ existing tomorrow - every single piece of religious delusion would continue the exact same way.
Prayers would be answered, people would attribute good things to God, miracles would happen in all religions..
If you assume something is true, your mind will make it real, connecting all the dots in there
>>73168195
where are those religions now . no one today even heard of thor was it not for marvel
>>73158471
related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2bQq4Hgmg
>>73168287
Who says there will be christianity in, maybe, 5 thousand years, your argument might be used for christians then.
Also, #crussadesbitches, DEUS VULT!
>>73158525
But according to scientific theories, all the matter in the universe was literally created from nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
>>73159418
aussie shitpost at its finest
>>73168458
why would it ?its the same god for over 6000 years first the jews then the christfags . the same god will be here also after 5000 years .
god wills it not
>>73168578
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
theories are nothing more then religion.
scientific theories is oxymoron.
Here's the evidence
>unzips katana
>>73168578
so the universe is created from nothing did god create it from nothing or did nothing created nothing
>>73168996
Well if you spread christianity when conolizing and pressuring them to learn said religion they are bound to be christian, but you forget there are still many other religions, like hinduism (old af) budism and le muslims, cant turn those into christians
>>73169060
>theories are nothing more then religion.
>scientific theories is oxymoron.
and the retard of the month award goes to....
>>73169540
And cz is supposed to be the most atheist country?
Teoria a vědecká teoria není stejná věc
Do people genuinely believe in god
Like really?
Seriously?
I thought it was a meme until i saw fedora posting for the first time
>>73168578
There's a fucking table in a dark room that moves around. You occasionally bump into it. "noticing it" So you decide that it fucking disappears when it's not in the same place...
>>73169060
HYPOTHESIS is the word you're looking for. THEORY is repeatable.
>>73158471
If you mean scientific evidence, there is none. The existence of God cannot be proven or disprove with science. Science can only explain what is within our universe, not what is beyond.
>>73165310
are you ok?
>>73169060
>i have no idea what science is
>i have no idea what theories are
>i have no idea what logic and empirical evidence is
>i have no idea what a conceptual model is
>my ignorance is better than any "scientist"'s (witchdoctor) learnings
>itt atheists and theists argue over something that can't be proved or disproved while agnostics watch and laugh at their stupidity
>>73173093
>itt atheists and theists argue over something that can't be proved or disproved while agnostics watch and laugh at their stupidity
>hahaha guys i dont know what theist or atheist means how cool is that?
>>73173263
> theists: I know God exists
> atheists: I know god does not exist
both are arrogant assumptions. There is no proof or validity to either claim.
>>73174098
>"there's a pink unicorn in the center of earth"
>"no there's not, that's ridiculous"
both are arrogant assumptions. There is no proof or validity to either claim.
>>73174474
Except we know for a fact that the earth has a nickel-iron core. There is scientific evidence that supports this.
The question of god on the other hand has zero scientific evidence to support either side of the argument. It's all meaningless conjecture.
Why you atheists/theists always bring up the unicorn bullshit in these arguments is beyond me.
>>73169060
This completely
>>73169540
>>73170108
>>73172001
These guys are fucking morons tricked in to believing the system.
>>73174864
The unicorn has properties that protects it from extreme heat/pressure. Besides, it's so small that it wouldn't really influence the makeup of the core.
Don't force your arrogant assumptions on me. There is no proof or validity to either claim.
>>73175064
Netherregions pls
You are embarrassing your country
>>73158471
Evidence of what?
>>73174864
Thats actually false. There is plenty of evidence for a creator, like building blocks, similar design, the fact that the world "keeps spinning" even though just a tiny change would disrupt everything and we would cease to exist. How many billions of years is it going to take until scientists are convinced that its enough time to make all the life and ecosystems on a similar planet? Too many things have to go right for humans to even exist... thats a lot of lottery wins.
The honest question is:
Why do people so convinced in/on their own personal beliefs feel a need to argue about it?
Live your life the way you see fit and shut up about it.
>YOU MUST PROVE TO ME THAT MY FAIRY TALES ARE NOT REAL AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
christfags are delusional
I've been tipping my fedora for too many years, and there's always an appeal to inconclusiveness to justify the belief that there are seriously extradimensional, omniflatulent beings of astronomical heft hiding behind the curtains of material reality who are obsessed with which holes microbes, by comparison in scope to our own, are sticking their weiners.
When I turned on my coffee maker this morning, it was a bacteria holocaust between the hotplate and the carafe. I didn't care about them, and I'm not about to presume that a deity, who towers over me by many more magnitudes if the descriptions of it are to be believed, cares about us.
If his eternal existence is so thoroughly empty that he has to cure his own boredom by lurking over the entire universe and finding displeasure with it, then I can't find any reason why I shouldn't have the pessimistic attitude giving way to nihilism that I already had in the first place.
Therefore, God exists.
>>73175519
That's not evidence.
> thats a lot of lottery wins
And yet a slim possibility is still a possibility. Just because it is very unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen.
Some people DO win the lottery more than once. It has happened before and will happen again. Richard lustig won the lottery 7 fucking times. SEVEN TIMES. It's not impossible. Just unlikely.
>>73158471
the burden of proof is on the believer not the disbeliever.
There is no such a thing as an Atheist, there are Agnostic-Atheists and Agnostic-Theists and then there are Theists.
To be an absolute Atheist would require proof of absence of a God and nobody can claim that, ergo Atheist = Agnostic-Atheists but its a bit of a mouthful to go into an absolute definition.
How can you prove that God exist?
It's simple, the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This was the nail in the coffin for my atheism. It's air tight and proves the existence of god.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0
Atheists=0
Christians=1
>>73176098
gnostic atheists and gnostic theists exist, they're just no where near as common as agnostic atheists and theists. You can't just claim atheism = agnostic atheism because it doesn't.
>>73176186
>This was the nail in the coffin for my atheism.
If the Kalam argument worked on you then you already believed in deities to begin with.
>>73176240
Ok well you're wrong, there is no Atheist who can claim to have proof of an absolute lack of god/gods.
>>73176373
Anyone can claim it, it doesn't mean it's correct. To outright say atheism = agnostic atheism is wrong by definition.
>>73176291
what do you mean?
>>73176186
"If something can come from nothing..." -- I stopped watching there.
Matter cannot be created or destroyed. It has always existed.
The laws of nature 'designed' everything that exists today. When you have an infinite amount of time, every possible design would have eventually come to be.
>b-but what created the laws of nature?
The laws of nature have also always existed. Just like 1+1 will always equal 2. It can't be manipulated to equal anything else.
>using science to discuss existence of god
you got memed
Isn't being an agnostic the most logical decision?
>>73176496
OK, to clarify, those that call themselves atheists actually mean agnostic atheist, you know full well as an atheist you do not have absolute proof that there is no god/gods/deities.
>>73176619
yes
>>73158471
evidence for what?
>>73176619
Theist: I believe in a God.
Agnostic: I am unsure whether a God exists.
Atheist: I have a disbelief in God.
Nope. Being an atheist doesn't mean you are asserting that there is no God. It means you have a disbelief in God, which is probably because there is no evidence of one's existence.
>>73176770
>which is probably because there is no evidence of one's existence.
causation and entropy sure don't mean shit?
>>73176658
that doesn't mean atheism = agnostic atheism.
atheism = lack of faith in god/gods
agnostic atheism = lack of faith in god/gods but does not claim to have knowledge about the existence of god/gods.
Atheism and agnostic atheism are two different definitions, you can't just pretend that they equal each other because they aren't.
>>73176770
not really
being an atheist means that you deny the existence of god
being an agnostic means that you have a disbelief; you choose not to believe in it when there's no evidence; you also choose not to believe in god not existing - since there's no evidence for that too
>>73159418
>actually total energy is conserved not mass, matter is often created and destroyed in particle-antiparticle pairs.
>For the current model of physics to be accurate an infinitesimal square of empty vacuum space could lead to another big bang explosion with a whole new universe.
Actually in cosmology energy isn't conserved. Space is expanding and empty space has a constant energy density, so energy is being created continuously. If you neglect general relativity (i.e gravity, expansion of space, big bang) and focus just on particle physics then you have energy conservation, but when you allow spacetime to curve it becomes difficult to even define energy.
You can't have another big bang taking place inside our space. That's terms like "big bang explosion" aren't used by scientists, it suggests that the big bang took place at some particular point, at a particular time instead of being the beginning of spacetime itself.
You might be misunderstanding eternal inflation - just a hypothesis, not a proven theory - which generically predicts a fractal multiverse filled with little universes of different size, but nonetheless involves no part of our space producing any more big bangs.
>>73176770
>>73177141
>agnostic
>believe
ffs
agnostic admits the possibility of gods existence, he doesn't believe in it
the whole point of agnosticism is that you are sceptic to such beliefs
>>73158471
Go fuck yourself Australobait
>>73177490
I don't understand, are you confused about why agnosticism is being coupled with atheism and theism?
>>73177490
That's called fence sitting, I am an agnostic atheist, I am an agnostic and I doubt there is any deity based on lack of evidence.
The moment you entertain the idea that there is a deity you are an agnostic-theist.
Anything beyond that is not even worthy of a title as you aren't an agnostic, you simply fence sit and have no stance.
Disturbing amount of fedoratheists in this thread.
>>73177683
i'm confused about the use of "believe" in case of agnosticism
"agnostic" theist is not agnostic, he's just not sure
agnosticism is not about "not being sure"
>>73177820
There's a pretty usual amount of Australians in it.
>>73177810
>and have no stance
that's the actual agnosticism
>>73159816
Fuck, guess I'm a cruzmissile now
>>73177681
What a silly image, conveniently forcing the theist to consciously reject each individual God as a leap of faith while allowing the atheists to reject the idea of Gods as a whole with no intervening step.
>>73177975
ok, now, can you be atheist with being atheist-agnostic or athiest-gnostic?
>>73177490
No. Agnosticism doesn't deal with belief; stop parroting that it does.
It's, also, not mutually-exclusive nor a middle-man. The people who continue to pretend it is either or both are closet Atheists, really, who are intellectual-cowards too fearful to own their Atheism, so they hide behind the veil of "Agnosticism" to cushion the blow -- masquerading as the middle-ground, when there is none.
>>73177865
agnosticism literally means "without knowledge". The term "believe" in this case means faith. So someone who is an agnostic theist is someone who has faith in god or gods but does not claim to have knowledge that they exist. Does that clear anything up?
>>73178040
>forcing
Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
But that's the thing about freedom. You're free to do ridiculous things.
>>73178040
So there should be one more step on the atheist line?
>>73177141
I actually started to get off the atheist bandwagon once this stupid "Agnostic Atheist"/"Agnostic Theist" shit started getting propagated.
It makes ZERO sense (literally just think about the definitions for a single iota) and exists purely to label each other more granularly than before because people didn't feel special enough.
But when I started to point out these glaring contradictions ("I don't know there's a God but I believe there is a God") everyone starts creating more specific versions of these definitions completely different from the accepted and common definition.
It was my first glimpse into the leftist "we argue definitions" defense that you commonly see with words like "racist" and "privilege" and so on.
It was really eye-opening revelation for me.
>>73178092
gnostic atheist is the only actual atheist
>>73178153
>Agnosticism doesn't deal with belief
my point exactly
also
>le closet atheist meme
>>73178217
faith without some knowledge is illogical
if you believe in something, you often have at least a small proof of it's possibility
Burden of proof is on those the theists. And no God of Gaps is not a 'proof' nor is appealing to ignorance.
The best they can do is to come up with some sort of metaphysics that has some vague creative force. This is called Deism which is an acceptable position. Anything beyond that (ie it's a specific God, it wants us to do certain things, heaven, hell) has any real proof. You can pull the faith card but that's not going to convince anyone since literally any religion can pull that, including gag religions.
>>73178269
No there should be less steps on the theist side.
Like for example
>I know what it approves/disapproves
This is a simple reflection of morality. In fact it is the exact same statement as "I know what is moral" but cast in theistic terms.
Unless you're claiming that atheists lack morality, it's an unnecessary step on the theistic side.
>>73178599
>if you believe in something, you often have at least a small proof of it's possibility
but faith by definition is something that isn't falsifiable and requires no proof
>>73178544
agnostic just serves the purpose of people not wanting to be put with fedoratippers
agnostics are the non-retarded atheists pretty much
>>73178544
>once this stupid "Agnostic Atheist"/"Agnostic Theist" shit started getting propagated.
How old are you? This shit is older than the internet.
>>73178607
>You can pull the faith card but that's not going to convince anyone
It's worked for hundreds of years buddy.
>>73178732
Yes, I specifically addressed this with my line:
>It makes ZERO sense (literally just think about the definitions for a single iota) and exists purely to label each other more granularly than before because people didn't feel special enough.
Specifically:
> exists purely to label each other more granularly than before because people didn't feel special enough.
Basically, you lack faith or conviction (in your non-faith) to such a degree you need petty labels to separate yourself because of others' beliefs
>>73178775
There's a lot of stupidity older than me but that doesn't mean it isn't stupid.
>>73178599
>gnostic atheist is the only actual atheist
But I do not claim there is no God, but I doubt the existence based on lack of evidence BUT I would change that given compelling actual undeniable evidence.
Ergo Agnostic-Atheist.
Have a nice day.
>>73178544
>I actually started to get off the atheist bandwagon once this stupid "Agnostic Atheist"/"Agnostic Theist" shit started getting propagated.
these definitions have been around longer than you've been alive
>It makes ZERO sense
the definitions are fine
>I don't know there's a God but I believe there is a God
That's not a contradiction.
>>73178717
i put it in the wrong way
let's make it:
>if you believe in something, you often have at least a small proof of it's possibility (or at least you think that the proof is legit)
>>73158471
There is no evidence, that's why we're atheist you dumbshit.
>>73179015
>But I do not claim there is no God
therefore you are not an atheist
have a nice day too
>>73178980
But you weren't around when it "started being propagated".
The last few posts you've made in this thread have made it abundantly clear that you're having a touch time reconciling that the universe doesn't revolve around what you perceive.
>>73179180
Hence my first point I made.
>>73176658
>>73179015
He's saying that the majority of atheists are agnostic atheists because that's the common, scientific position most people hold. Gnostic atheists are usually militant atheists and fedora tippers, people who are too stupid to have a real philosophical debate about reality so they just stick to whatever they see other people doing.
>>73178658
>Unless you're claiming that atheists lack morality
Technically they do, since morality itself is a structure built upon subjective perception of value and comparison, it's not, like a "concrete" thing.
That's actually the source of the majority of arguments for why so many atheists on this board pretend to be Christfags.
>>73179270
we need to get rid of that
"agnostic atheist" is pretty much a contradiction
>>73179096
I see what you're saying. I think agnostic atheism/theism does think there is lack of proof or proof to some degree, but doesn't consider that lack of proof or proof to definitively decide whether god/gods do or do not exist. Whereas Gnosticism does claim to have definitive proof of the existence of god/gods.
>>73179046
Same tired arguments. If you cannot see the glaring contradictions there's no point in either of us arguing.
You know what I would say to a person who says "I don't know there's a God but I believe?" I would say they don't actually believe because there's evidence all around.
In exactly the same manner, if someone says "I don't know there isn't a God but I don't believe" I would say, "Why do you falter in your conviction?"
>>73179237
There's no argument here against the fact that the definitions exists purely because of a dissonance of faith or lack-thereof. Your argument fails the "lets argue different definitions" point I made.
Good luck in your endeavors in arguing definitions so you can feel special!
>>73179473
No it's not, one talks agnosticsm/gnosticsm is about certainty of knowledge and atheism/theism is about faith in god/gods. That's not contradictory.
>>73179504
exactly
Gentle reminder: All religious posters on 4chan are trolling.
>show me the evidence, dick
>w-well accktually m-musems h-hav-
>SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE, RICHARD
>t-there's some b-bones in-
>RICHARD WHERE IS THE GODDAMN EVIDENCE?
>w-we have-
>SEE, YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING CAN YOU, ATHEIST SCUM?
>b-but I just t-told yo-
>>73158471
The burden of proof lays on people like you who believe in ridiculous fairy tales. That's like me telling you that I have Narnia in my closet and telling you to prove me wrong.
>>73158471
Have you had a look in >>>/x/?
Go there and fucking STAY there.
>>73163367
Hahahaha wew lad, you're a special kind of idiot aren't ya?
>>73179631
>agnostic
"i don't know"
>atheist
"i am sure there is no god"
that's pretty contradictory for me
>>73179532
If you can't tell the difference between knowledge and faith, then you're right there is not point in discussing.
>I would say they don't actually believe because there's evidence all around
that's just putting words into other people's mouths
>Why do you falter in your conviction?
No definitive knowledge
>>73179920
atheism = lack of faith in god/gods, not "I am sure there is no god"
>>73158471
>evidence
It doesnt work that way. You make the positive claim. You have to prove there is a god.
i've genuinely never heard a sound argument from an atheist, for their position
not one
they're all ad hominem nonsense statements and strawmen
>>73179532
I'm not concerned with the debate over it. I have this profound ability to reconcile multiple points of view and I'll happily accept whatever categorical label that another person needs to assign to me to make sense of my position at a conceptual level.
Here's what's interesting about that.
It's often the labels and categorized associations of positions held that the theists use to box in and corner their opponents in their attempts to produce arguments, even though they're just knocking over strawmen of their opponents.
>if you say you're an atheist then you *NEED* to claim that God doesn't exist so my arguments against you hold water, otherwise I'll bitch and moan about semantics and mock you for rejecting my categorical labels.
So yeah. I'm "agnostic". Feel free to box me into the "lack of convictions" category and strawman away.
>pic related
>>73179780
The weak should fear the strong.
>>73179920
Knowledge versus belief.
I know versus I believe.
It's a silly arguing point and people get hung up on it.
>>73179777
troll spotted
>>73158471
The world has hundreds of gods, it once had thousands. Which one is yours?
>>73158471
Nice flag, cunt
>>73158471
>Where's the evidence?
YOU are the evidence.
Stupidity like you can't be created by God.
>>73180053
you have to prove a universe can exist without external influence
this is the uncomfortable reality that atheists try to deny.... there is no secular, rational, logical explanation for our existence. now, you can choose to wear blinkers, and say "la la la i'm not going to think about it, la la la" with your fingers in your ears, until you have test-tube watertight evidence for the explanation, but that evidence will never present itself
what sort of creator God is going to be so incompetent that it leaves searchable footprints for its creation to discover, in the creations' primitive existence of 3-dimensions and 5 senses?
>>73179532
Making the base assumption "I can obtain knowledge about the universe" does not contradict the belief "I think the universe exists", they're answers to completely different metaphysical questions. Why do you act like they're the same?
>>73179991
>lack of faith
that's agnosticism
"faith in god not existing" - that could be named atheism, though not entirely
>>73162554
>No credible scientist is a self-proclaimed athest
The same is true for scientists who proclaim themselves theists. The only credible scientist would be an agnostic, because the existance of a god or divine power is unknown and unprovable (so far), so neither a positive nor negative claim can be made about it. Agnostics are still atheists in practise.
>...a lot of science comes down to faith in the unknown
False, science comes from the search to explain the unknown, not to have faith in it. To have faith in it would make it religion.
>Science has strict rules and guidelines
>Religion has strict rules and guidelines
>This means anything
>Scientific method was invented by a devout Muslim
Yes, and? What do you think this proves? That a theist is capable of setting things up that ultimately undermine their religion?
>science is not infallible
Science is infallible, but scientists aren't, only a scientist applying the rules of science better than a previous scientist can debunk the previous scientist's conclusions.
>no fields of science are rational
The "doctrine" of science is to obtain evidence and use logical steps to explain what the evidence implies. If that is not rational then I do not know what is.
>Mental Health treatmens and psychology has been woo-woo science
Agreed, the problem with these fields is that human thought patterns vary on a case-by-case basis. The same problem occurs in "social sciences".
>>73180060
Well how is someone suppose to make a sound arguement disproving someone else's imaginary friend?
Are you implying that you've ever heard a sound argument for God?
>>73180354
agnosticism = lack of knowledge, not faith. Knowledge and faith are two different things.
>>73180074
>if you say you're an atheist then you *NEED* to claim that God doesn't exist
Just because someone else doesn't know what atheist means does not mean you should go around calling yourself an agnostic.
>>73180551
I'll call myself a Grithnok if that's what it takes to get you to acknowledge my "special snowflake position" instead of dancing around a stuffed Anton Lavey doll after ripping the stuffing out of it.
>>73178795
No it hasn't. "Faith" was never the primary arguement for Christianity until about a hundred or so years ago (about the time it started decaying)
There was also some sort of reasoned arguement behind it, but those got fucked over hard by natural sciences. Earthquakes used to be seen as a proof of God for instance, so did humans being born with a priori knowledge. However natural science showed us earthquakes were not the result of an angry God and a priori knowledge is transfered genetically rather than giving by angels. As I said the best reasoned arguement you can come up with now just points to some vague Deism or Spinozian Pantheism.
Once your only arguement is "mai faith" than it starts looking unattractive. You can say you have faith that Jesus is a God and I can say I have faith Jesus is tongueing my ass-hole and they would be equally convincing.
>>73180479
agnosticism = lack of knowlege AND faith
why would agnostic believe in god? or believe in universe without god? he doesn't have any base for it and he admits it
Fucking hell. The existence of a deity is not falsifiable thus it does not fall under the scientific realm and thus you don't need evidence. It's a matter of faith.
You either believe or you don't. Any evidence is bullshit. Anyone asking for evidence for either is exposing themselves as being a dullard.
>>73180690
We're literally on the same side in this thread and yet here you are trying to shitpost me. Damn you're stupid.
Also no, making up more fake words is not going to convince me that you shouldn't use the words we already have to describe yourself.
>>73180053
>t doesnt work that way. You make the positive claim. You have to prove there is a god.
Utter nonsense.
Burden of proof is simply a rhetorical tool not an actual physical law of the universe.
The universe doesn't care who makes a "positive claim" or what is unproven in your mind. What's objectively true is objectively true.
For example:
If a madman two thousand years ago had claimed that disease was claimed by tiny animals germs, he would have no ways to prove his claim to a skeptic like you who demands proof, but it wouldn't make it any less true would it?
Hiding behind "burden of proof" is simply a rhetorical trick to avoid making an argument not an actual argument itself. It only exists so that the smug logicians of yore could sit back primly and chuckle as they made some poor rube spin his wheels.
>>73180819
As I said before, agnosticism literally means without knowledge, knowledge meaning proof and evidence. You can have faith in god and not have definitive evidence of god, making you agnostic theist. There's still nothing contradictory about that.
>>73180074
>It's often the labels and categorized associations of positions held that the theists use to box in and corner their opponents in their attempts to produce arguments
If I ever need to, I like to label myself as a skeptic foremost. I think it gives people a better image of my thought process, and at the same time manages to encompass a few of my positions.
>"I don't NOT believe in God, I just don't trust the people that wrote your book."
>>73180742
It's hilarious the way atheists automatically assume their opponent is talking about Christianity. It speaks volumes as to the true purpose behind the creation of mainstream atheism, that being to undermine the foundations of Western morality.
>>73181190
Or more so; "I don't know God doesn't exists, I just don't trust people"
>>73180928
Words are fluid constructs.
The concepts they symbolize are indefinitely variable, analog in nature. We're cursed with using language because we're not telepathic.
I realize we're on the same side, but remember that I said that I have this profound ability to reconcile multiple perspectives, and I'm aware that I'm not just sending messages to you. They appear on the screens of like a hundred other people, so I'll convey the concepts in whatever terms they need me to use so they can comprehend them. Neat huh?
>>73181124
if you have faith in god, you have a reason for it.
something that you think is the proof
if you admit to have a proof, you can't name yourself an agnostic
>>73160364
>I love when Dawkin's mother is Jewish but he pointedly never talks about that fact.
How is that even relevant?
My parents are/were Catholic. I'm atheist.
>>73181550
Jews are a race. Catholics are not.
>>73160966
>"God definitely does not exist".
I don't know any atheists or scientists who make that claim, senpai.
Atheists simply lack belief in a god or gods, usually because of the complete lack of evidence in support of any such deity.
>>73161450
>The other bases their beliefs on the non existence of evidence.
Do you believe in unicorns? No? Prove to be they don't exist. Show me the evidence. HAHAHA Unicorn-atheist BTFO.
>>73176186
>using Also Sprach Zarathustra as background music
how ironic
>>73180060
See:
>>73176005
I have no intention of proving to you what you should be capable of perceiving yourself.
Pay special attention to the last line.
>Therefore, God exists.
In case you're having trouble understanding what I mean by that, it's a venomous way of saying, "cool story bro." I don't care what you believe, and you're welcome to believe it all you want, and I don't require your permission to find you ridiculous.
>>73181637
>Jews are a race.
Even if that's true, I still don't see how his mother being Jewish is relevant at all.
>>73181515
If your friend tells you there's a dog in your backyard, you'd possibly believe them.
You don't know there's a dog in your backyard until you see it and hear it. (Even then, absolute knowledge is debated topic)
So if the bible tells you God exists, you may believe it. You won't actually know until you have divine interaction or a convincing delusion.
This issue only gets brought up in an attempt to break someones argument. When in practice, neither side will ever change their stance.
>>73176005
>When I turned on my coffee maker this morning, it was a bacteria holocaust between the hotplate and the carafe.
As long as they were Jewish bacteria, it's all good, amirite?
>>73163464
That's not even a properly formatted TI-Basic program.
>>73182368
Indeed.
>>73182337
you know, it's quite possible there's a dog in my backyard. dogs exist and most ppl will agree to it - it doesn't require absolute knowledge.
god, by definition, is something beyond our comprehension
it's impractical to say that there are no dogs
>>73183390
>nobody knows for sure, so my belief in easily demonstrably absurd shit is entirely justified
>>73182285
jews are the spawn of satan,
>>73183562
i don't get it
can you put it another way?
>>73158471
You look to that blubbering moron for inspiration for your shitpos-
Aha! Almost got me!
9/10
>>73180985
Ok then, i have thirty microscopic unicorns stuffed up my asshole.
Prove to me i dont.
>>73183661
Your argument is an appeal to inconclusivity.
Most of these threads are filled with them.
Invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot, etc...
So progressive.
>>73158471
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TrovtcNhpQ
>>73158577
Evidence is in the predictive capability. People have made predictions based on evolution such as the dynamic nature of bacteria.
Yeah, done. Predictive capability is the highest tier of scientific evidence.
t. physicist.
>>73182337
To be fair the atheists are under no logical compulsion to change their stance or their view on evolution.
>>73183832
>inconclusiveness*
fucking words. I hate them
>>73183832
the thing is, i didn't even make an argument about god itself in there
read my previous posts and replies to it
>>73177681
shit picture i beliefd in god before i even read the bible
>I have a book
>>73184030
Okay.
I apologize.
It's a pretty common thing though, and it grows increasingly tiresome to see this shit over and over again as I age.
>>73183832
But there are many reasons why there is a god and many reasons why there is not.
invisible pink unicorns or your teapot does not have a reason why it even should exist
>>73184443
... There isn't any proof. Case closed. That's all the rational mind needs.
If you aren't just ridding the Christ train then your only interest in the topic would be finding proof, which you can't do.
>>73184443
>invisible pink unicorns or your teapot does not have a reason why it even should exist
Was there something about my skepticism that indicated to you that I had already accepted the claim that deities do?
I keep seeing the law of conservation of mass. But then how do you explain the Big Bang? Everything was created
>>73183820
>t. Amazing Atheist
Why would I try to prove that?
If you have thirty microscopic unicorns stuffed up your ass that's your problem not mine. I have absolutely no interest in conclusively determining the contents of your ass.
Faggot.
>>73185201
Do you know what the Big Bang theory describes?
It's a grossly incomprehensible mathematical model of the universe where, from looking out into space, we measure the average velocity of celestial bodies, see that they're all moving away from us, and rather clumsily determine that at some point the forces of nature must have given way to a powerful event that led to all this shit moving away from each other.
The singularity that it's estimated to have originated from is assumed to have a "mass" equal to the universe in its current state. Nothing about the model indicates that there ever was a point that it "poofed" into existence, magically or otherwise.
>>73158471
This bitch is -straight- lying to herself.
>>73185201
Yeah, atheists, like myself, but dumber, seem to forget that.
No one knows how the mass got their. Physicists, against, like myself, but more prone to cop outs, will give you a tone of jargon that doesn't even make sense in the context to avoid talking about it, however that is because it doesn't fucking matter.
Physics man:The net mass of the universe is known to be constant
Dude: W-here did it come from?
Physics man: By necessity it has always been there
Dude: So it has always been?
Physics dude: No, because based on the prevailing model of the big bang, all matter existed in an infinitesimal point in space, which means there is infinitesimal, or no time. Without the a mass occupying a finite space time cannot run finitely, hence there was no time for a creation before the big bang.
Dude: So what caused the big bang?
Physics man: Some cosmologists are proposing a cyclic universe, and some hypothesis an existence along the lines of membrane theory which is basically the same thing but with less sense.
Dude: So when did the cycle start?
Physics man: I dunno lol probs forever ago
Dude: What caused that to happen
Physics man: 2 many questions feget
>>73185968
again* like myself
>>73158525
That's not how science works.
>>73185968
>Physics man:The net mass of the universe is known to be constant
>Dude: W-here did it come from?
It's constant and zero.
Mass and energy when measured against the positive energy (like mass) and negative energy (gravitation potential) is zero.
So nothing is made that isn't balanced by an equal amount of negative energy.
>>73186477
No, there isn't zero mass in the fucking universe.
Yes, there is energetic equilibrium.
And?
>>73160295
The good ol' TI-85. You can open programs and write whatever you want in. Used it to cheat ever since I got it.
>>73158471
look around you its everywhere. from the smallest infant's laughter to the hugest tear of a fat faced donald trump.
the inherent falsehood of the jewish god myth is what binds our universe together. The absence of jewish god flows through every atom and every molecule like sand through the hourglass of time.
>>73186749
The TI-89 was better, in my opinion.
You could play a shitty ASM grayscale clone of Super Mario Bros on it.
>>73186875
Nice. Texas Instruments products are great.
I don't believe in any god, but I like some of the benifits that Christianity in particular brings to the weaker minded people who are heart broken and want to believe that they will one day reunite with their lost family and friends.
>>73168996
>same god for over 6000 years
Not really. 'Yahweh' wasn't even worshipped as an entity. He was based on previous semitic gods, notably 'Marduk'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21vPrlX6Yx4
>>73187045
Yeah, it's too bad that they'd let you bring in calculators that you could fucking program to cheat with but phones are forbidden.
I can't wait to observe the kinds of one-size-fits-all legislature that the normie politicians will be trying to pass in the future.
Did you see the thread about that Mexican politician who wants to ban memes?
I'm going to have a hard time explaining to my therapist next week the kind of shit that gives me so much depression, in a one hour slot. It's sad that I only ever show up just to take advantage of talking to someone who won't panic when I mention suicide.
