>>80834586
Do you?
No, and neither does anyone else.
>>80834586
1 post by this ID
Same reason everyone else does. Because I'm alive.
>>80834586
No
They should all be killed
Happiness
>>80835133
Someone need to lick the ass of his imam and shovel shekels towards it. That's his reason.
Atheist checking in.
I think simple curiosity to see how things turn out, for good or bad is as good a reason as any to hang around for as long as possible.
>>80835397
Then you're a fucking idiot.
Nothing else is going on except this moment.
The alternative is literally nothing, you might as well be something.
>>80834586
Yes. Life is good. If you need a holy book to not kill yourself, maybe it's time to seriously consider it faggot.
>>80834586
What's a religion's point of giving?
For example mudslimes would kill themselves and ruin so many people's lives just on a false notion that heaven awaits. But it doesn't.
>>80834586
>collecting pokemon
>>80835523
That doesn't sound too fulfilling
>>80834586
Objectively yes because humans have unlimited potential to discover,create,accumulate and share knowledge.We are the Universe experiencing itself.
>>80834586
Humanity is the one creature to live upon this earth that ever made anything significant of themselves, the first to not just be content to live in dirt and advance, to not be content in the comfort of their home and have the drive to see whats over the next hill, to not only look to the stars and wonder, but to reach for them and learn.
Humanity is here and every second we try to push forward, each day further than the last, just who the hell do you think we are?
Give ONE good reason why this entire planet shouldn't be nuked entirely.
atheist here
i have no good reason to live
i have no good reason to die
>>80835630
It doesn't matter anyway, religious people can still be depressed. Source: local bars filled with religious alcoholics.
No matter what you believe you'll justify whatever you're feeling and rationalize it.
I'm manic depressive so I'll flip here soon.
>>80835719
Is that enough to get you through the day if you're not an astronomer or something like that?
>>80834586
Yeah, they don't spend their fucking life worrying about getting into the next one, so they're naturally chill, and don't have to fear retribution from their shitty imaginary friend or the fan club
>>80835867
But you're happier with religion
I hate when retards add the word "objectively" because they think it makes them sound intelligent.
>>80834586
I understand not believing in an all-knowing creator, but I don't understand being totally atheist either. I think the world has had SOME kind of designer, probably even an imperfect one who didn't know exactly what they were doing.
But for an atheist to believe that everything is just a result of complete and utter nothingness. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Especially if they believe (as I do) that free will doesn't really exist: if everything is in a way already determined, then it speaks to the fact that there's something making these determinations.
>>80836005
It won't fix your tangible problems. The biggest thing about life is realizing that reality doesn't always sync with your emotions and comfort, you're just lucky enough to be born somewhere to sit somewhere long enough to worry about superficial things.
>>80836005
If you can delude yourself into believing in religion since most mainstream religions have no evidence to actually back up the things they claim except MUH HOLY BUK.
>>80836106
How can you live a fulfilling life if you believe you don't have free will?
>>80836005
>happier with some old Jewish text telling me everything I enjoy doing is wrong and that enjoying life is a sin, so I should go get on my knees and tell and old man to tell his sky fairy to forgive me
>>80835466
And you're just triggered because you can't refute it.
>>80836217
But you can also delude yourself that everything is shit because of your emotions. It goes both ways
>>80834586
Degeneracy and selfish "me" wants
>>80836005
how
>>80836301
There are some things that you can enjoy that would make you happier than just enjoying things at random
>>80836394
Except believing you have a special place in life and won't perish is an emotional reaction and desperation for comfort. The concept of God is a loving father figure for the father figureless. You might as well believe your computer goes to heaven as well. It's emotional reasoning, such as the cult of SJWism. Especially if your religion is Christianity which teaches self-hatred, inherent guilt, and is fueled by the No True Scotsman fallacy.
>>80836301
>get on my knees and tell and old man to tell his sky fairy to forgive me
This is not in the Bible at all. It is a Catholic lie. That said, christcuckoldry is not a reason to live. If anything the promise of heaven is a reason to end this miserable existence as soon as possible. Many early Christians actually requested to be put to death if arrested because they wanted to go to heaven rather than continue on here.
>>80836529
First of all, it means you believe in free will (very uplifting), it gets you to avoid spiritual and physical vice (a very damaging thing)
And it gives you the ability to have faith and hope for the future again
>>80836106
>just a result of complete and utter nothingness. >doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
But muh nothingness
But there are things we can't understand yet therefore muh deity exists
Cyclical Universe ? Nah, I don't understand which means we were made by some entity with magic and sheit
>>80836816
>it means you believe in free wil
>
>>80836614
>Except believing you have a special place in life and won't perish is an emotional reaction and desperation for comfort.
It's getting depressed and completely catatonically hopeless an emotional reaction as well?
It's not evolutionarily natural either. If most of our ancestors did that, the human species would have been extinct thus far
>>80836970
You become a Christian only if you have faith in free will
With the exception of some fringe, Protestant groups
What exactly is free will?
>>80836991
>Isn't* getting
>>80835466
That's rich.
>>80837149
The (limited) but present ability to choose outside of any direct or indirect outside influence
>>80836991
I surely hope you're not arguing that [things that make me feel good = the one truth].
I'm mostly arguing against any established religions because they're all designed for siphoning money to a centralized point, natural survival tactics when you live in buildings that are held up by charity you then must make a business of inciting that charity.
>>80837052
>no free will
>still judged by god for your actions
???
>be born gay
>sent to hell because you were born gay
???
Christianity aka mental gymnastics: the religion.
Now comes with brain damage, delusions of flying through clouds for eternity and fedora memes.
>>80837306
>I surely hope you're not arguing that [things that make me feel good = the one truth].
I'm arguing that religion is an evolutionarily necessary adaptation
It is an historically effective evolutionary antidote to the mind wondering chaotically without purpose without hope and in total randomness of thought and principles
Organised religion or not
>>80837528
You're not born gay
The science is currently out on that question
>What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
>There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx
>>80837554
That might be because it was useful to control masses of people without being able to survey them appropriately, very convenient when convincing people God literally chose you to rule them.
But why should one become religious? If your life sucks, a religion won't make the pain hurt less.
Do you at least acknowledge that none of them are true, regardless of the comfort it may or may not provide? There may or may be a god out there, or this could all just be the result of a quantum fluctuation and things that work, such as life, sprouted in the seemingly infinite existence. Wherever life occurs is where our consciousness manifests, that's why one certain scientist said that it only needs to happen once.
To have someone interpret something that should be incomprehensible is literally retarded.
I have been given the opportunity to live by the collective efforts of my ancestors. I must repay it by exterminating gypsies, sand niggers, niggers and kikes.
>>80837884
And before someone says the last statement is irony, I meant the fact that religious people claim that God's will is unknowable to mortals and then they tell you that God doesn't want you to fap. Why would God give a fuck, and that God wouldn't have to be benevolent either which would be very uncomforting. To imagine that your life is a game of dwarf fortress and when your algorithm runs into a death algorithm you cease to exist and God is done with your ass.
>>80837884
>But why should one become religious? If your life sucks, a religion won't make the pain hurt less.
Your life sucks partly because it's actually shit and partly because you've gotten into your mind that not only is it utterly shit (when it might not be *utterly* shit), but that there's just no way you could fucking get out of the shit you're in
Agnostic Religion (Agnostic Christianity) is the antidote to the delusion that your life is objectively beyond salvation
>Do you at least acknowledge that none of them are true, regardless of the comfort it may or may not provide?
The comfort does not necessarily mean they're true. But religions are beyond scientific testing, so there's nothing that may scientifically prove they're false either
>There may or may be a god out there, or this could all just be the result of a quantum fluctuation and things that work, such as life, sprouted in the seemingly infinite existence. Wherever life occurs is where our consciousness manifests, that's why one certain scientist said that it only needs to happen once.
>To have someone interpret something that should be incomprehensible is literally retarded.
It's incomprehensibly true, AND incomprehensibly false
You may never *scientifically* know
>>80838012
>And before someone says the last statement is irony, I meant the fact that religious people claim that God's will is unknowable to mortals and then they tell you that God doesn't want you to fap.
That "no fap" rule in Christianity is an evolutionary adaptation to further cement the unity of the religion by avoiding potentially vicious distractions which would be biologically unhealthy, and to preserve the cohesion of the religion (in case you develop a lust for a spouse outside of your religion or generally an obsession that would distract you from it)
Look up in the Bible: Colossians 3:17
>Why would God give a fuck, and that God wouldn't have to be benevolent either which would be very uncomforting.
The benevolence of God is through discipline and tough love. Not a permissive random arbitrary love
>>80834586
Crashing this planet
WITH NO SURVIVORS!
I am alive. death is a certainty and No one knows what comes after. Living a good life means creating an environment where I can live that good life. Good life means food, maintained infrastructure, low crime and engendering a communal warmth.
Without mentioning a god I've given you a pretty basic reason atheists want to live. Admittedly many of us are hit by a deep sadness when we stumble upon the belief that there is no God or afterlife which leaves us hollowed out. Some of us fill that hole with the idea that if life is short then gorge that tiny life with pleasure. These are your hedonistic degenerate atheists, like Russel Brand, Oberon Martel and most (probably) celebrities.
Other atheists realize that regardless of what happens to them after their death, the world will keep on spinning, with their children and the actions they took during their life still affecting the world. These are your legacy builders like Tywin Lannister, Vladimir Putin, Etc.
Still others want to know more about the world we live in, striving for knowledge, to make their mark in a scientific field. These are the plutocrats, The scientists like Bill Nye, black science man etc.
>>80839718
>Good life means food, maintained infrastructure, low crime and engendering a communal warmth.
Do you feel that's enough?
>>80835347
Ok ahmed.
>objectively
It takes an indemonstrable amount of arrogance to unironically use this word.
>>80840327
>It takes an indemonstrable amount of arrogance to unironically use this word.
Is this subjectively true then?
Then it is worthless
>>80836816
>Vice
Aren't churces boy rape central?
You have no moral authority. Just saying.
>>80840416
Hence my unironic use of the word indemonstrable.
>>80840479
Then that's merely your faith
>>80840565
It would only be faith if I made indemonstrable claims.
>>80840447
I'm not one of those supposedly Catholic priests
>>80840680
You claimed it takes arrogance to use the word objective
>>80840696
How convenient.
>>80840770
I said it takes an indemonstrable amount of it.
>>80840770
Is it viable to claim anyone has a model for objective morality? If so, explain.
>>80834586
Why are the most autistic frog posters christian.
Laughing at the god awful arguments religious people come up with for believing in god? Certainly keeps me going.
>You can't prove god DOEN'T exist!
Always a classic.
>>80840869
And is that demonstrable?
>>80834586
>Binging on drugs, food, women
>Covertly purging plebs and muslims
>Slim possibility of a political revolution that allows for openly purging plebs and muslims, also pillaging
>War tourism
>Sex tourism
>The suffering of your enemies
>Shooting sick ass guns at exploding targets from the back of an ATV
>Skydiving, mountain biking, bungee jumping, kayaking, hunting
>Seeing new technologies
>The outside chance of meeting extraterrestrial life and brutally conquering it in a genocidal campaign of interstellar war
If you're having existential problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems but a reason to live ain't one.
>>80840898
Clarify what you mean by viable
>>80840992
If nobody comes forth and demonstrates the amount of arrogance you display, then I'd say that's demonstrably indemonstrable.
>>80841068
A working model that, if utilized in society, would flourish.
>>80841118
That would be faulty reasoning.
Just because no one "comes forth to do it" doesn't mean it can't be done. Thinking otherwise is an Argument from Ignorance
>>80839718
Are you so shut-in that you have to point out fictional characters to make your point?
>>80841268
Tell me what you see as society flourishing as well
>>80834586
You're already alive, why not live? Especially if your life isn't completely shit. Hell even if it is complete shit, do something cool and outrageous with it. I bet being a child soldier in africa would be pretty cool, guns and murder and cocaine as far as the eye could see for the few years I'm actually alive before getting shot myself.
For everyone in general though? Novelty. Especially if this is your only chance at life might as well try to experience as much novelty as possible, considering how crazy it is that life even exists in the first place.
For me? In all seriousness? Weed. Knowing at the end of the day I have that waiting for me makes pretty much anything bearable. The good feels and the creativity it brings. Even during long stretches of time where I haven't been able to use any at all (mostly while going to college for engineering since it fucked up my studies) I knew some day I'd be able to get high again, so it makes it all worth it.
And before you get into degeneracy shit, I don't do any hard drugs, not even alcohol. Hangovers and cirrhosis of the liver are shit.
>>80841352
One? Did you miss his whole point dummy?
>>80834586
so you faggot christians are living because you think you're gonna keep living after you die?? hahahahahahahaha kys
>>80840447
>Aren't churces boy rape central?
No, some, but no. Men are corruptable, Humanity is Sinful, from the lowest beggar to the king of kings and everyone in between.
It's not a black mark on Christianity, for without Christianity our societies buckle under the weight of degeneracy and sin in every aspect of life.
>>80836005
only mentally challenged people are happier with religion
>>80841306
True.
That's why I specifically expressed it as an opinion.
>>80841421
Does having weed make you fulfilled?
>>80834586
Chance of you coming to this world is minimum as fuck. You are given thei opportunity. That's the best reason.
>>80840054
For a simple life yeah. I'm talking rural Bush ranger simple though. If you want a nation of space faring atheists you're gonna need a bit more then some grub and a cuddle
>>80835601
I always thought existentialism and in particular absurdism were very helpful to overcoming whatever existential crises I might have had in the past, though. Learning about the true nature of life helped a lot in figuring out what I should logically do with the rest of my life, which is, in a basic sense, seeking pleasure and avoiding pain in the most efficient and comfortable way possible.
That said maybe that picture is right and I just forgot I was playing the existentialism game? Who knows?
>>80841568
We're all happier with religion
We're mentally challenged without it
>>80841356
Whatever you want it to mean in the sense of good. No crime/killing, good conditions, etc. Just the basics of something everyone could potentially get behind
![Cc0JFPzW0AMKL0a[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/mAwwjW6.jpg "Cc0JFPzW0AMKL0a[1].jpg")
>>80841421
>>80841696
Do you want a nation of space faring atheists?
>>80841352
So only theists can talk about their fictional characters, got it.
>>80841529
The amount of children raped by priests is huge.
>>80838302
>>80838736
You're still only merely listing that it makes you feel good and has practicality, and yet you're still believing in something that isn't true which is the definition of delusion. Would lying to yourself make yourself feel better? Sure, but you're still living a lie and if you believe that you're more aware because of this you're chin deep in double-think.
>>80841875
Power corrupts.
>>80841984
Why would you give a serious response to someone who went to such great lengths to explain to you that they should not be taken seriously?
>>80841788
>Is there a working model of objective morality that, if utilized in society, would lead to no crime/killing, good conditions, etc. Just the basics of something everyone could potentially get behind
Traditionalist Agnostic Christianity
Fully compatible with using reason and the scientific method in technologies (Instrumentalism), and with avoiding the moral degeneracy of that society into vice, crime and nihilism (the Traditional part of it)
wow never looked at it that way
i guess im a #christcuck now
Hey christ fags how can you explain niggers if humans were created in gods image? Chexmix, christians.
>>80841840
Yes.
>>80842126
How is delusion healthy
>>80834586
That's not how it works, retard. Living is the default. You need a reason to die, because dying goes against your biological imperative.
>>80841984
>You're still only merely listing that it makes you feel good and has practicality, and yet you're still believing in something that isn't true which is the definition of delusion.
That isn't Scientifically true. Neither is it Scientifically false (which is just as delusional to believe)
>Would lying to yourself make yourself feel better? Sure, but you're still living a lie and if you believe that you're more aware because of this you're chin deep in double-think.
I would just as much be lying to myself if I thought God doesn't exist
>>80834586
Unless we want to fulfil our biological imperative. If not; then there's no reason to live, because we'll all die someday anyway so it doesn't matter if I die today or tomorrow.
>>80842247
Delusion:
>Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact:
http://www.dictionary.com
How is believing that God exists a false belief?
Just look at eastern philosophy. In systems like confucism the existence of deities is irrelevant. Social harmony and the happiness/wellbeing of yourself, family, friends and society seems more important than what the dragon gods are up to.
>>80842383
It's a lack of belief due to no evidence suggesting there is one. Do you do that for all the gods and mythical creatures people assert exists? Of course you don't. You're making a special case for one and it's just as poor as the rest of them.
>>80842170
You said "then you're gonna need a bit more than some grub and a cuddle"
What's that "bit more"?
>>80834586
Hedonism
>>80842134
Wow what a powerful picture. Reminds of that guy who stepped in front a tank in China.
>>80842526
If you have contradicting things written in the one and only book you possess for evidence of your God and you ignore them, it's delusion.
>>80835608
Top kekkles
>>80842526
Also, way to skip over that first definition which perfectly sums it up.
>>80842655
>It's a lack of belief due to no evidence suggesting there is one.
That doesn't in the least affect the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of God's existence. It's an Argument from Ignorance
>Do you do that for all the gods and mythical creatures people assert exists? Of course you don't.
The Christian faith is incompatible with the existence of other gods
And all polytheistic faiths are incompatible with monotheistic ones
>You're making a special case for one and it's just as poor as the rest of them.
Just equally poor in scientific evidence. You can consider Occam's razor to reduce the redundancy of having a multiplicity of gods that would divide the duties the Christian God does
It's only 9:21 in the morning and I think today might be the day that I kill myself, all truth be told.
>>80842841
>If you have contradicting things written in the one and only book you possess for evidence of your God and you ignore them, it's delusion.
Only if those contradictions factually exist
>>80843131
The psychiatric definition is the best one
>>80841639
Define "fulfilled".
>>80843222
It's not ignorant because you believe it is. That's literally textbook ignorance you silly goose. It doesn't matter if they're compatible, theyre all assertions. If you're claiming you don't because they don't fit within the scope of your God them you're being ignorant. The same could be said about any other religion. Occams razor gives no validity to God in the same way it doesn't benefit atheism. Are you being dishonest purposefully?
>>80843636
Does it maximise the potential of what you're meant to be? Does it make you feel complete? Whole? That your full worth is put into use?
>>80835466
Why aren't you practicing magic if you think it exists?
>>80842679
I'm not an expert on society building anon. I can guess though and my guess would be pride.
Pride as an individual and pride in a nation. No one who isn't proud of what they can do is going to say "I'm going that extra step and doing nigh impossible thing" and a country whose people aren't proud of it and each other isn't going to support those lions of advancement. Instead they'll wallow in whatever they have now.
They've tried to take our pride from us here in Australia, but I learned about the Eureka Stockade, the Bush rangers and how we demanded our own right to rule from the Empire on my own. I'm proud of that, proud that we honour our Alliances, proud of our way of life and how we love life itself.
And now that I'm proud of this country, I want to fight to keep it safe. I don't need a god to know right from wrong brother but if there is a god, then they know me, my motives and my beliefs better then I do and when the time comes, however their judgement falls, I'll have lived how I believed was right, not what dogma tells me is right.
>>80843423
Which they do factually exist. We can use that one, I still made my point.
>>80834586
My birth?
>>80842679
An understatement.
Thought you bongs were good at that.
>>80843858
>It's not ignorant because you believe it is.
It is from a logical point of view an Appeal to/ Argument from Ignorance
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument_from_Ignorance
>It doesn't matter if they're compatible, theyre all assertions.
Can't mere assertions be correct?
>If you're claiming you don't because they don't fit within the scope of your God them you're being ignorant.
I can't believe in them, as a Christian. Our faiths are fundamentally incompatible
>The same could be said about any other religion.
Perhaps. But that does not make them equally true. It makes them equally demonstrable
>Occams razor gives no validity to God in the same way it doesn't benefit atheism. Are you being dishonest purposefully?
Are you familiar with Occam and how he used his razor?
Pic related is Occam
>>80844055
>Which they do factually exist
They may well do. I haven't found any thus far
>>80836106
BUT WE HAVE NO ANSWERS AS TO WHERE GOD COMES FROM EITHER
BOTH THE BIG BANG AND GOD HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED SO EITHER WAY YOU'RE GOING TO FUCKING DIE
JUST GO FAP ROFLMAO SAD CUNTS
>>80834586
no, and christtard religion is anything but objective. so where does that leave you? faggot.
>>80834586
The sole reason to live in abrahamic religions is to die, so I don't think anyone does.
>>80834586
Yes. They need to be saved by the love of Jesus Christ before they perish.
>I live because my rabbi tells me to
Holy fuck christcucks
>>80843973
I appreciate your self-esteem and I myself do agree with taking absolute pleasure in obeying God
>I don't need a god to know right from wrong brother but if there is a god, then they know me, my motives and my beliefs better then I do and when the time comes, however their judgement falls, I'll have lived how I believed was right, not what dogma tells me is right.
but I can't agree with this. This is the very thing that has allowed the World's religions at random to invade us and to cancerously spawn from within our Western nations
>>80844354
You're the one telling me you're just blindly asserting things I'm in the one appealing to ignorance? What??
Assertions could be correct. The point is that there is no supporting evidence for your claim in the same way other religions don't have sufficient proof.
So you've closed yourself off to potentially correct assertions because you assert this one to be true because you have only faith. This is delusion at its finest. To assume this is the way to objective morality is odd, to be honest.
The razor could take the path of least resistance to the default position. I assume Occam wasn't a good gymnast.
>>80844846
The only correct answer
>>80844925
How do you figure that?
>>80843379
god give me strength
>>80845062
stay with us buddy
>>80845062
Self loathing cunt, die off or be a man and change yourself for the better. Fucking knock it off.
>>80834586
Yes, to endlessly demand the death of Normal Humans.
>>80844517
Then you haven't read the bible.
>>80844965
>You're the one telling me you're just blindly asserting things I'm in the one appealing to ignorance? What??
You're the one who's Appealing to Ignorance. I don't claim to know God
I have faith in Him: (Agnostic Christian)
>Assertions could be correct. The point is that there is no supporting evidence
*Scientific evidence
>for your claim in the same way other religions don't have sufficient proof.
Sufficient/ scientific proof
>So you've closed yourself off to potentially correct assertions because you assert this one to be true because you have only faith.
That is how humans, who can't be omniscient, have to function
You can't but assume what you may not know
And we may not know of much quantitatively and qualitatively, in this life
>This is delusion at its finest. To assume this is the way to objective morality is odd, to be honest.
It's not delusional if it's not a factually false belief to hold unto
>I assume Occam wasn't a good gymnast.
Stop assuming and actually read how it is meant to function from the source: friar Occam
>>80845062
>>80843379
Hang in there mate. Here, have some inspiring Bible stories
I'm not a mormon, but they make some cool Biblical (and thankfully accurate) renditions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHBo7ka3YZQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36np176rqnE
>>80843946
Define "potential" and what it means to "maximize" it, define what feeling "complete/whole" means. Define what your "full worth" is and why it's an imperative to "put it into use".
Philosophical discussion is mostly a matter of semantics and most of your words are extremely ambiguous. You have to define your terms.
For example how does one know ones potential, let alone how to "maximize" it? How does someone know what one is "meant to be" in relation to maximized potential? At the end of the day, does it change the absurd nature of reality as described by Camus?
Let's say you reach your maximum potential, what then? You still die like everyone else, yes? And what of the sacrifices you must make to reach your maximum potential, are they necessarily worth it? For example, what is the difference in "maximum potential" between the POTUS and a simple Buddhist Monk? What makes one more of a "maximized potential" than the other, or otherwise have more inherent value to what you do in life?
Ultimately though I believe logically, if this is the only life we get and there is no God, no everlasting soul, no afterlife, and no judgment, then novelty and efficient happiness/comfort seem like the most obvious answer. I can vape weed for decades and actually have improved health, compared to alcohol or heroin which can kill me. I could also skydive or whitewater raft for the adrenaline rush, or other dangerous activities which are also far more dangerous. You'll have to prove objectively why maximizing your potential is superior within that context if you want to convince me.
>>80845561
I have. I'm still in the process of reading it though so you might always be right
Do rocks have an objectively good reason to be rocks?
>>80845657
I don't know God. I didn't say i did. I said I don't believe a God exists because there is no evidence. What other evidence could we have that gives proof for your claim other than something we understand?
We tend to assume with good reason, but to assert this story is true is far past that. We don't function that way, gullibility is not good. How could you honestly say that could be true. We use reason and critical thinking in every second our lives, you're going to make a special exemption on this one thing? For what?
Why cant I interpret text the way i want it to read?
>>80834586
they enjoy fucking everyone's shit up
पाषाणडीर प्रति क्रोध बाडिल प्रचूर
संहारिमु सब
heretics greatly increase anger towards them
i will kill them all
>>80846364
I didn't know they had a choice. Who knew.
>>80845944
>At the end of the day, does it change the absurd nature of reality as described by Camus?
Camus has described an absurd nature to reality. He has not demonstrated it and it was merely apparent to him. Blindingly apparent, but an apparition nonetheless
>Let's say you reach your maximum potential, what then? You still die like everyone else, yes?
I don't believe our maximum potential is purely in this life
>And what of the sacrifices you must make to reach your maximum potential, are they necessarily worth it?
They are if God exists
>For example, what is the difference in "maximum potential" between the POTUS and a simple Buddhist Monk? What makes one more of a "maximized potential" than the other, or otherwise have more inherent value to what you do in life?
The maximum potential that one could attain in this life is the degree of closeness he attains to God
>Ultimately though I believe logically, if this is the only life we get and there is no God, no everlasting soul, no afterlife, and no judgment, then novelty and efficient happiness/comfort seem like the most obvious answer.
It's comparatively less happiness than the bliss that God would offer
>I can vape weed for decades and actually have improved health, compared to alcohol or heroin which can kill me. I could also skydive or whitewater raft for the adrenaline rush, or other dangerous activities which are also far more dangerous. You'll have to prove objectively why maximizing your potential is superior within that context if you want to convince me.
Maximising your potential (as in putting what you are and can be and do to full use) is superior to not doing so only if there is an absolute purpose towards which to dedicate yourself
>>80834586
Do theists have an objective proof that they're objectively good reason to live is true?
>>80834586
Yes, because we arent buttslaves to your bitchass sex hating god.
Family, legacy, joy, knowledge, continuation of my genes, it's human nature.
>>80846610
>I said I don't believe a God exists because there is no evidence.
If you think that lack of evidence can in any way imply a lack of truthfulness to God, then that is an Argument from Ignorance
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument_from_Ignorance
>What other evidence could we have that gives proof for your claim other than something we understand?
Any other. Theism is a wholly personal experience
Monotheism is the least redundant type of theism because of Occam's razor applying to the other gods
And at least one God must necessarily exist
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_reason
>We tend to assume with good reason,
Not always. More often than not we assume without ever possibly being able to prove what we believe
>but to assert this story is true
Upon faith
>is far past that.
Not necessarily
>We don't function that way, gullibility is not good.
You're only being gullible if I'm lying to you. I may well be in error but I am certainly not trying to lie to you
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gullible
>How could you honestly say that could be true. We use reason and critical thinking in every second our lives, you're going to make a special exemption on this one thing? For what?
Because we always need to make special cases for the most fundamental parts of our thinking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Philosophical_skepticism
>Why cant I interpret text the way i want it to read?
Because if we take Christianity axiomatically, there are more logically consistent ways and less logically consistent ways to interpret the Bible
More presumptive ways to interpret the Bible. And less presumptive way. Et cetera
>>80846894
We may use faith to assert the fundamental attributes necessary for our existence
Atheists refuse to
>>80846801
>God blah blah blah
I mean... we can't really continue a logical debate from here. I base my philosophy of life on scientific and empirical evidence alongside the collective information discovered thus far by humanity. While we don't know 100% of the information about everything in the universe, ultimately this is all I have to base my logic on.
Thus far I have been given no evidence to suggest God exists, and even if he does, anything to suggest his nature. Actually, there's a lot of stuff to suggest the opposite in modern science. That's mainly the problem. If you have some actual empirical evidence then please, feel free to show it, but science looks at data and evidence and then comes up with theories and laws to explain that evidence. It doesn't work the other way around, like with religion. "God exists because he just does" isn't evidence.
So anyways, considering what we currently know in medical science about consciousness and how the brain works, it seems much more likely that we live in a materialistic and deterministic universe, with (and I know you might bring this up) problems of quantum probability like heisenburg's uncertainty principle being problems of human measurement rather than the operation of physical matter itself. Causality is pretty important to logic, and the problem with saying God has always existed (an effect with no cause) and created the Universe gets destroyed by Occam's Razor (if something could have always existed, might as well say the Universe always existed since it removes a step, and likewise you could also make the argument of "well what created God?" which can go back infinitely). You could also solve the infinity problem by simply making time a circle, like in Buddhism. In fact, a lot of Buddhist ideas are pretty interesting when you compare them with modern science (like reincarnation vs. the law of conservation of energy, the scientifically proven medical benefits of meditation, etc).
>>80847745
You do know what Burden of Proof is, right?
Furthermore, even if we were to say God exists just for the sake of argument, how do you know his nature? How do you know your religion is correct compared to all of the others? How do you know which rules to follow and which not to follow? Hell, how do you know God even GIVES A FUCK about your life or what you do? God existing doesn't necessitate an everlasting soul, an afterlife, or a judgment, which are the main pragmatic reasons for belief in God. That there are some ultimate cosmological consequences to your actions, for all of eternity.
Still, Burden of Proof is on the one making the claim. This has been discussed many times in the past, "well you can't prove he DOESN'T exist!" doesn't mean God exists you nitwit.
>>80841732
Says the mentally challenged person.
But...how would YOU know?
>>80847745
Its not ignorant to say i dont beieve there is one, there could be in the same way bigfoot exists but i have no proof of his existence. Its useless to claim something you have no evidence for, and humans dont do that unless its for religion. If we are talking fallacies, all youve done here is special pleading for one god whom you have no evidence for. Im not the ignorant one, nor is my claim.
>Not always. More often than not we assume without ever possibly being able to prove what we believe
Like what? We use reason and critical thinking from our personal and others' day to day activity to learn how to navigate accordingly. We bounce our ideas off each other to come to a coherent and reasonable conclusion. We dont need faith.
A god doesnt need to exist. You have no reason to believe that. Using faith in someone you dont know exists as a beginning pillar for the rest of your ideas, instead of using your own reasoning based on the world we live in is ridiculous. Youre abandoning your only tools to determine whether something is useful or good or viable. Faith is gullibility, you have no reason to believe your own claim so you just blindly follow it.
>Because we always need to make special cases for the most fundamental parts of our thinking
Again, need an example.
I was joking on that last bit.
>>80848260
>I mean... we can't really continue a logical debate from here. I base my philosophy of life on scientific and empirical evidence alongside the collective scientific* information discovered thus far by humanity.
Yours faith in the truthfulness of the scientific method and empiricism is yours to have. I already have mine
>While we don't know 100% of the information about everything in the universe, ultimately this is all I have to base my logic on.
You are obligated to rest your logic on some axioms
And only God is the axiom that can vouch for the functionality of logic. And yes, even for that of the scientific method
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_reason
>but science looks at data and evidence and then comes up with theories and laws to explain that evidence.
Those theories can never logically generalise you know (induce)
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
>It doesn't work the other way around, like with religion. "God exists because he just does" isn't evidence.
God exists axiomatically. There is no "because"
>So anyways, considering what we currently know in medical science about consciousness and how the brain works, it seems much more likely that we live in a materialistic
It's an assumption
>and deterministic universe,
Assuming it can induce (see response above)
>the problem with saying God has always existed (an effect with no cause) and created the Universe gets destroyed by Occam's Razor (if something could have always existed, might as well say the Universe always existed since it removes a step,
Removing this step removes any potential veridicity of logic and the scientific method
See: the Argument from Reason wikilink above
[1]
>>80849252
>>80848260
>and likewise you could also make the argument of "well what created God?" which can go back infinitely
You can't have a working logic if you go back infinitely
>You could also solve the infinity problem by simply making time a circle, like in Buddhism.
That's circular logic and just as absurd
>In fact, a lot of Buddhist ideas are pretty interesting when you compare them with modern science (like reincarnation vs. the law of conservation of energy, the scientifically proven medical benefits of meditation, etc).
They solve nothing. It's circular reasoning and by design cannot lead you anywhere
>>80849252
Your* faith
>>80848872
>implying I'm the mentally challenged one
>>80848872
To be fair to the religious people, I actually realized a lot of the religious practices and beliefs are pretty useful mentally. Like praying to God and crossing yourself and saying "amen" to yourself and shit like that. Makes life a lot less stressful if you just choose to pretend to believe in this stuff, you get all of the mental benefits of religion without any of the downsides of true belief like the guilt and such.
I love saying shit like "Jesus CHRIST!" or "please Lord get this school bus to take a fucking left so I can get to class on time!", it feels good. You should try it some time. There's no downside to believing what you want in this way, right? No one has to know, there's no actual God that's gonna fuck with you... so why not still reap the mental benefits by choosing to believe in it anyway, but only the good parts that make you feel good?
It's kinda like the idea of a Muse for artists. You can take the stress off of your shoulders and if the art turns out to be shit, you can blame it on the Muse instead. I can go into a test and be like "well Lord, I did everything I could, it's in your hands now" and it makes me feel legitimately less stressed.
It's like a form of meditation you could say, but different. Not to say it isn't bullshit from an empirical, "Truth" perspective, but it's useful bullshit, know what I mean? Try it some time.
>>80848024
>assert the fundamental attributes
What does this mean?
>I expect too feel smug thinking of all the people that live on pol without purpose
>now i'm just drowning in feels
>>80849252
>Yours faith in the truthfulness of the scientific method and empiricism is yours to have. I already have mine
It's not faith asshole, I can test the law of gravity myself for example.
Like I also said here: >>80848637 it's pretty important to consider what the nature of such a God is.
>God existing doesn't necessitate an everlasting soul, an afterlife, or a judgment, which are the main pragmatic reasons for belief in God. That there are some ultimate cosmological consequences to your actions, for all of eternity.
But this is still all besides the point, which is that there is empirical evidence for things like the law of conversation of energy or gravity, that can and have been tested time and time again and proven to always work and work in the same way. This evidence does not exist for God, nor his "nature". We don't know everything but faith and science are not the same thing, science is of course incomplete but I'm at least basing my ideas on stuff we have actually discovered, proven, and described, instead of stuff which is a complete fantasy like you.
tl;dr present some empirical evidence for a God/creator and his nature which involves me following certain rules for an eternity of rewards or punishments, or kindly fuck off. That's all I'm asking.
>>80849252
You assert he exists and claim someone else has the problem of induction? Am i reading this wrong?
>>80848637
>You do know what Burden of Proof is, right?
Wholly infective against the validity of the Argument from Ignorance
A courtesy convention
>Furthermore, even if we were to say God exists just for the sake of argument, how do you know his nature?
>How do you know your religion is correct compared to all of the others?
You never really know. This is all (necessary) faith, and personal experience
>How do you know which rules to follow and which not to follow?
Christianity has the Bible, which one may use his reason and intelligence to analyse the logical consistency of how other people are interpreting it
>Hell, how do you know God even GIVES A FUCK about your life or what you do?
Well for one, we are the only known sapient creature in a universe of rocks and shit. He might as well care if He gave us this unfathomable complexity
>God existing doesn't necessitate an everlasting soul, an afterlife, or a judgment, which are the main pragmatic reasons for belief in God. That there are some ultimate cosmological consequences to your actions, for all of eternity.
It doesn't necessitate the lack of them either. When you get into details it can heavily rely on faith
But once you adopt a set religion you have the rules and attributes of God defined as well
>Still, Burden of Proof is on the one making the claim. This has been discussed many times in the past, "well you can't prove he DOESN'T exist!" doesn't mean God exists you nitwit.
It means God may exist.
"God doesn't exist" is exactly just as much a claim as "God exists" is
>>80849332
Believing time is a circle is not the same as circular logic just because they both involve the word "circle", are you serious right now?
Besides I never said Buddhism was Truth (the religious side of it at least), I was just pointing out how there are at least a lot of modern scientific discoveries which lend themselves to an increased possibility of them being right.
In short, I don't know 100% of all of the Truth but we do know quite a bit in 2016 right now. All I can do is base my life on the things which currently have the greatest possibility of being the Truth, in which case I'd say I have a much higher possibility of being correct than your belief in God because I actually have empirical evidence and logic to back up my understanding of reality. You don't.
>>80849569
One "fundamental attribute necessary for our existence" is that we have objective worth
>>80834586
>Do atheists have an objectively good reason to live?
No.
Thankfully, reason isn't necessary (nor is it sufficient) for biological entities to have drives and goals.
In fact, the process of our bags of chemicals replicating inherently selects for the desire to replicate our bags of chemicals. Or the ideas inside those bags of chemicals. Or to build stuff that is of use to bags of chemicals similar to us. Or to go kick the ass of bags of chemicals that are different to us, and take their stuff.
Logic cannot give you an objective motivation since it cannot give you an objective set of values.
Those values must come from your chemical meatbag hormoneflesh.
>>80850312
>in which case I'd say I have a much higher possibility of being correct than your belief in God because I actually have empirical evidence and logic to back up my understanding of reality
How have you calculated this higher possibility of you being correct?
>Do atheists have an objectively good reason to live?
Yes, and they should take their fedoraisms to r/atheism
>>80850233
>"God doesn't exist" is exactly just as much a claim as "God exists" is
It's not, though. There's an infinitude of things that we can claim exist with no evidence if this is the case, and by your logic the claims of anyone with no evidence is as valid as the claims of anyone with evidence.
You might call the effect of objects being pulled to Earth "Gravity", but I call it Jim, the invisible mostly intangible octopus who pulls things down at all times and ever presently. Who's to say I am wrong?
>>80850334
>we have objective worth
According to?
inb4 muh holy scripture
>>80850075
>I can test the law of gravity myself for example.
If you have, how can you prove that your results apply in exactly the same way all across the universe?
>>80850075
Try and test the Big Bang while you're at it
>complete fantasy like you
>using insults to mask lack of substance
God's existence can't be proved. (At least scientifically.) Yet the weight of evidence not only makes it possible to believe in God's existence—it makes it very hard to ignore. The Holy Bible, as well as the accounts of reliable men and women through the ages, testify to the reality of God.
We can provide evidence for King Tut having existed through ancient artwork, but we cannot prove his existence.
>nothing exploded, m'lady
>>80850635
There's no relevance to the discussion as to whether they are.
The point of the discussion is you say "God exists" and an atheist asks "Okay, how do you know that?" and the only answer you can give is because either A) You think he must exist, or B) Because you want him to exist.
>>80850597
le Christ
>Christians believe this happened
Beyond retarded. Religion is the ultimate of blue pills.
>>80850233
So you're going to assert he exists and not give evidence for your claim, and then go on to attempt to tell us we're engaging in fallacies? Also, it's not as much of a claim as "God doesn't exist" because there's contradictions and falsities in the one thing you gauge your faith on.
you didnt reply to >>80849221, i switched to my computer.
>>80849378
GET DA WATER NIGGA
>>80850784
And how is he more credible than any modern cult leader or self-proclaimed messiah?
>>80850108
Science has the Problem of Induction
I don't claim to know God. I have faith in Him
>>80850800
>religion is the ultimate bluepill
>>80850496
>pic related is the atheist bluepill
>>80834586
Not really. I just exist.
But I don't really feel the need to kill myself either.
Life is what you make of it, and the only thing that matters _to me_ is personal enjoyment, because that is _my_ only personally objective (so globally subjective) measure of the worth of living.
>>80850233
Of course, agnosticism is the way to go (God may exist), because we don't know 100% of the information yet, but atheism is still the default. I don't believe in God until I'm presented evidence of his existence which I can test and consider and evaluate. I have not been presented such evidence yet, therefore I have to believe God doesn't exist until I'm given some evidence that suggests otherwise. This has been how science always operates: we used to believe the earth was flat and everything revolved around it until we got more information and discovered otherwise, and changed our ideas based purely on the new evidence.
I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I'm saying I have not been presented with evidence to suggest he does exist, do you understand the difference? Until I'm presented with such evidence, I can't in good conscience follow some arbitrary rules or philosophy on how to live my life, now can I?
>You never really know
>He might as well care
I mean all I can really do is fall back on asking for evidence, which you don't have.
But that aside, I've always thought of the following for people who say "well you can't disprove my beliefs!": why shouldn't I believe I'm actually God in that case, instead of following any given religion? It would make the most logical sense, right? You still have your God, your "creator", yet now you can believe you essentially created this life for your own amusement and entertainment. That you reincarnate yourself in different lives for different experiences for the novelty of it, then when you die you return back to your all-powerful self and do it again for shits and giggles.
I mean why not? It's just as likely true as your belief, just that it heavily favors me as an individual and removes problems like sinning and eternal punishment and such. Something to think about. If I were to believe in God I don't see any reason why I wouldn't follow this belief, and, using your own reasoning, you can't prove me wrong.
>>80850898
Read the Holy Gospel to see for yourself
>>80834586
Yes to make sake and rice offerings to sun goddess Amaterasu, and make our prayers to the kami
>>80850753
How would you test the big bang? This isn't a dichotomy by the way. If the theory is false, it doesn't mean God exists. If science is wrong, it will change accordingly. Its our best reasonable model of how life became at the moment.
>>80850923
You have to get back to the basics of what the red and blue pill metaphor is all about. In that sense, a blue pill is something you take because knowing the truth is harsher and more inconvenient.
This image >>80850753 is classic bluepill. "Without God our existence seems meaningless and I don't like that, so I'll believe in God."
>>80850547
It gets pretty ridiculous when you consider just how deep the lack of scientific knowledge and understanding is within the religious community. Especially when they think they can use logic in their favor, it gets pretty hilarious like we're seeing in this thread.
>>80834586
Trolling, it's why I live at least.
>>80851034
I already inb4'd that, bong. The Bible is incredibly flimsy and the authors' personal biases are plainly obvious. Not to mention all the bonkers contradictions.
Is there a logical reason you believe the bible?
>>80850923
The baby doesn't have enough information to support the other's idea that there is a "mom" and one is blindly assuming something we know now to be true. Are you saying this is a literal analogy for Christianity? This might be the best evidence religious people have, actually.
The atheist position assumed here is silly.
>>80850547
>It's not, though.
It is 100%. Otherwise you're making an Argument from Ignorance
>There's an infinitude of things that we can claim exist with no evidence if this is the case,
Yes, but only towards a few of those things would there be reason to have faith in
>and by your logic the claims of anyone with no evidence is as valid as the claims of anyone with evidence.
Claims with evidence may equally be as truthful as claims without evidence
Evidence does not vouch for truthfulness. Unless you had absolute evidence
>You might call the effect of objects being pulled to Earth "Gravity", but I call it Jim, the invisible mostly intangible octopus who pulls things down at all times and ever presently. Who's to say I am wrong?
You might well be wrong but you might also be right. It's scientifically unfalsifiable
>>80850477
My understanding of reality is based on the most empirical evidence available. If someone has a belief that is based on better, more concrete evidence than mine, I would have to change my understanding to accept that new evidence and knowledge.
I mean that's basically how science works anyways, you're taught in Physics I that scientists and engineers must keep an open mind because new evidence is discovered for things every day. You must remain humble in that regard. Compare that to religious people.
In short: the person who has the most and best quality/strongest evidence to support their claims wins. We don't have 100% of the information so there's no ultimate "Truth" yet, so instead it's the most probable to be Truth right now. And modern science has come pretty fucking far in the last 100 or so years.
A lack of a reason to die.
>>80851387
There's a logical reason I believe in Monotheism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_reason
I have faith in Christianity specifically
As a NatSoc agnostic, my sole purpose in life is to stop the spread of Islam and Zionism and to
"Secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."
>>80834586
Atheist here.
No.
![1466260842383[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/LZAqcQT.png "1466260842383[1].png")
>>80850820
There is evidence for the existence of God, such as miracles, predictions in the scriptures that came true, and supernatural happenings that science cannot explain and instead tries to hide. If you want examples, you can very well fucking Google "Christian miracles".
>contradictions and falsities in the one thing you gauge your faith on
Like what?
>Science of gaps
>implying that a lot of science isn't built on presumptions, indirect methods, and theories which are being revised at this very moment
>Bigfoot exists but I have no proof of his existence
No shit, because Bigfoot isn't real (unlike God, for which there definitely is evidence)
>http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/stephen-hawking-and-leonard-mlodinows-inadvertent-proof-for-god/4526/
Don't ask me for proof, just fucking Google it yourself unless it triggers you
>you have no reason to go along with your claim so you just blindly follow it
Stop constructing your entire argument around "muh christcucks cannot prove that God existed". We cannot prove that God existed, but we can provide evidence that shows that he existed. Atheists cannot show us the Big Bang, but they can provide evidence as well.
>Christianity is cuckoldry and worships a Jew
Jews hate Christianity, as well as atheists. If anything, atheists are the good goyim
>Christianity
>Cuckoldry
>Crusades
>Inquisition
>>80850800
That's just a fucking illustration.
>>80851479
>Yes, but only towards a few of those things would there be reason to have faith in
>Claims with evidence may equally be as truthful as claims without evidence
What the fuck am I even reading right now?
>>80850898
Because he is the essential part of the largest religion in the entire world, while cults are just minor groups that create their own set of beliefs
Get off the internet and hunt a gazelle, Mugabe
>>80850753
>We can provide evidence for King Tut having existed through ancient artwork, but we cannot prove his existence.
There's a thing where a more elaborate, larger premise should also require larger analysis or evidence to support it. People are alive now, and they presumably lived before anyone who was alive today, so it is not at all unreasonable to suggest that a person was alive in the past. It's when that person in the past does things or says things that don't logically align with the physical world we have today that we need more evidence for them to have existed and for those events to have occurred.
Consider that you were sitting at a table across from two individuals. Both are clasping their hands around an object, which is obscured from your view.
Both individuals, with perfect neutrality and no hint of emotion or tells explain to you what is in their hands;
Person A says he has a $5 bill.
Person B says he has the declaration of independence.
You have no reason to believe either, no evidence that the man with the $5 is any more truthful than the man with an important historical document, but it's STILL within reason to suggest that A is more likely to be truthful than B, because B's claim is outrageous and makes no sense.
>>80851493
>My understanding of reality is based on the most empirical evidence available. If someone has a belief that is based on better, more concrete evidence than mine, I would have to change my understanding to accept that new evidence and knowledge.
Why should you only accept concrete empirical evidence?
>I mean that's basically how science works anyways, you're taught in Physics I that scientists and engineers must keep an open mind because new evidence is discovered for things every day. You must remain humble in that regard. Compare that to religious people.
We accept science and reason as well as faith. Science is more dogmatic than Christianity in this sense
>In short: the person who has the most and best quality/strongest evidence to support their claims wins.
How do you prove what the best type of evidence is?
>>80851610
You're Irish. You don't have many reasons to live anyways.
Have a redpill, /pol/
>https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Atheist
>http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism
>inb4 muh ED and conservapedia
Read it, unless it triggers you
Reminder that antinatalism is the ultimate redpill.
>>80851853
So, you're saying that evidence that attempts to prove the existence of God may be fraudulent, like the man who claims he has the Declaration of Independence?
>>80851733
Evidence does not *necessarily* vouch for truthfulness. Unless you had absolute evidence
>>80852088
>antinatalism
>>80834586
Yes just because there is no god doesnt mean there couldnt be anything after death
I believe in rebirth since it is very logical thus i will atleast live as long as possible since the next live could as well be worse
>>80851062
>If science is wrong, it will change accordingly. Its our best reasonable model of how life became at the moment.
I still don't understand why religious people don't get this, it's basically what I've been trying to argue this whole time in various ways.
We rely on Science because it works. Faith doesn't power your fucking computer, God doesn't make your computer work, Science does. And they work the same for everyone in the world using computers. The building you're living is can withstand the forces it is put under every day because people figured out how statics and strength of materials works, so you have a house that doesn't get toppled over by the wind or in extreme circumstances, you have bridges which can withstand hurricanes and earthquakes. This is not Faith, this is not a "belief", this is Truth which is used time and time again throughout the world. Look at Einstein for example: he was able to accurately calculate the position of stars behind the sun, which would be shifted due to the sun's immense gravity (you can see stars that are technically behind the sun because it's gravity bends the light around it), and it took many decades before it was actually proven during a complete solar eclipse. And his calculations from decades prior were correct, based purely on mathematical models.
Like...
I don't know how to get the difference between Faith and Science across to these dense motherfuckers. I'm sure they'll spout some bullshit even about this post.
>>80852219
To add:
Imagine in next live i could be some kind of nigger species shieet
>>80849455
Confirmed.
>>80849503
Speak for yourself. I don't need imaginary friends to feel good. And happiness for it's own sake is overrated.
I'm an atheist.
I feel I have no reason to live. But that's because I'm also a Manlet. Life was fine initially through my teens and twenties; I could at least get fat, ugly, insecure sluts to slob on my knob on a fairly regular basis. But once I hit 30 I basically found that even the ugly and insecure bitches all feel like they could do better now.
Courting women in my current condition requires considerable amounts of money. I'm mortgaged to the tits, and have like 100,000 dollars in unsecure debt, so I can't even afford to pay for sex anymore.
Maybe if I believed in god it would feel better, but I'm not retarded enough to believe in god. That's the sad truth of it.
Being an atheist is just salt on the wounds though because I don't believe anything but the chilling darkness of non existence awaits me when I die.
The worst part is my boss somehow seems to know that I'm deeply in debt and can't afford to lose my job. So he piles on the extra work. He clearly wants to watch me slowly bend until I break. He's passive aggressive, so he's always smiling, almost naive of the fact that every time I talk to him I'm secretly fantasizing about punching his teeth in.
>TLDR
No.
>>80852217
>please let me stay plugged into the matrix!
>>80851572
That just argues against naturalism my dude, it doesn't give any reasons to believe a deity exists. The claim has as much backing it up as me saying I'm God.
>>80851850
>it's popular so it's true!
Lel left-leaning politics are also popular at the moment senpai.
If it isn't material it can't be objective.
Only physics are objective, everything else is relative.
>>80852348
>le "I don't need any stupid happiness >:P" atheist
for my wife and son
>>80851955
>Why should you only accept concrete empirical evidence?
You should check out critical theory anon, I think you'd like it.
>>80834586
No.
Living is not something you need to have a reason to do, it's just something you do.
>>80851479
It's not, and its not an argument from ignorance. Is it more likely with or without proof? I understand you don't like evidence in this one small instance of your life, but if you argue this simple point it shows how dishonest you are.
You're asserting now that the ones who have faith in something you don't think they have reason to have faith in is false? Special pleading as fuck.
Claims with evidence are more likely as claims that have contradicting and falsities. They're not more likely, but it doesn't mean it cant happen. It just means that it's logical structures aren't sound and are more likely to be false. You don't put out false information and still assume you're a viable source of claims, especially an omnipotent and omniscient God.
Absolute evidence? You're only unreasonable within the bounds of religion. Every other aspect of you're life you don't seek "absolute truth", what a retarded argument.
So everyone can just claim everything without evidence and just say "well you don't know it cant"? This is such a dishonest position, you're beyond relativist mental gymnastics at this point.
>>80852144
I think he may have argued that a bit poorly, but I'll try to help.
It doesn't matter because in both cases, the evidence would be analyzed and tested. There are ways you can test if a $5 is actually a $5 or just a piece of paper printed with a picture of a $5 on it, there are ways you can test to see if a document is actually the original DoI or is a fake. Even with say, famous paintings like the mona lisa, this is true.
I don't think it's about the outrageousness of the claims, but instead what we can understand through applying the scientific method to the evidence given.
The problem with God is there is no evidence to test in the first place, which I've been saying all thread and you've still provided none. So I must remain agnostic with atheism as the default until evidence is provided to suggest otherwise.
>>80836005
>But your happier with the blue pull
The truth will set you free. Freedom is to be what we thought we couldn't be. One of those things is to make the world a better place.
Take the fucking red pill. See the fucking reality for what it is.
>>80852535
>>80852386
>be a 100k in the hole manlet
>not retarded enough
lmao kys fampai
>>80852502
This picture hurts physically.
>>80852144
That's pretty clearly not what I was saying, no. Science makes every effort to just open their hand and show you what's there, and they state almost constantly that they don't know this or that but are trying to find it out.
The contrast between Science and Religion is more or less that generally a scientist is in the process of finding things out, and while they may ask for money to help them find that out they're very rarely keeping that money as a direct "Give me your money because I know these things". While organized religion has historically exploited billions of people into giving up their property and lives for the sake of doctrines that they themselves created.
Scientist says "Here's how things might work, but I'm trying to find out whether or not that's true."
Pastor says "This is how things work; and how things work is God says give me your money."
>>80851610
Is that why your people decided to starve instead of fish when you ran out of potatoes?
>>80852430
There needs to an absolute source of authority in order for the very possibility of true knowledge through logic and the scientific method to be possible
A supreme axiom to absolutely justify the axioms of logic and science
>>80852672
ring in my pussy please
>>80852698
>Implies accumulating money is the end-all-and-be-all of life
You know where you belong.
>>80852547
I've already been immunised from it as it's fundamentally incompatible with the existence of Traditionalist Christianity
>>80852205
But evidence, whether absolute or not, is still evidence. Which usually isn't taken in a vacuum either, but compared with other evidence we have. And we describe nature to the best of our ability based on this evidence.
Absolute or not doesn't really make a difference. Truth is like a puzzle and over the years we're collecting all of the pieces and trying to put them together, we won't have absolute evidence or otherwise a "complete picture" until we collect them all, but we can still have some understanding of what the complete picture will be based on all of the pieces we've collected and put together thus far.
>>80852386
Non existence is pretty illogical considering the fact that you were non existant before birth too
>>80852502
Oh, dear. Dr Normal says you have a swollen ego. That can be very painful, I know. The remedy is to go soak your head in a bucket of ice water for a few hours (don't worry about the breathing thing...God will sort that out for you).
>>80852797
The only existing authority is what we observe in the physical world. For example: I can see the room I'm sitting in, but I can't see or hear any divine beings.
>>80834586
>Religion has objectively good reasons!
>Said religious people.
>>80834586
The life itself. There is nothing after death, so why not enjoy the time you are alive?
>>80853051
You are a typical pleb tier mind getting caught up on the whole 'origination' fallacy.
There's no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that suggests that the functioning of the fabric of reality depends upon there being an absolute origin to all things.
I'm just a human shaped fluctuation in an endless sea that always has been.
>>80852758
Must've accidentally deleted part of my early post.
The man who has the declaration is in the analogy a religious person. They expect you to believe, out of hand, and with no evidence other than that THEY are confident that it is true, even if it's possible that they're just very good at lying.
$5 = Gravity works like this.
Declaration of Independence = Gravity works like this because an invisible sky man made it so according to the words of people who are long dead or at the heads of a large power structure that collapses if people don't believe that it is true.
>>80852982
Something I've also been wondering: why "Traditional Christianity" rather than another religion? Or is there no particular reason and that's just what you were raised with so might as well go with that instead of catholicism, islam, buddhism, hinduism, paganism, zoroastrianism, etc?
Because my point at the end of here still hasn't been responded to: >>80850985
Why not just believe you're actually God instead of basing your beliefs on an organized religion at all?
>>80853263
I've tried enjoying life.
But I'm 200,000 dollars in debt, and I haven't gotten laid in over 3 years.
>>80846728
I didn't know you had a choice to be born.
>>80853192
Morality behind religion is objectively to better society. Some do it better than others, but I'd take any religious person over an atheist. Except for Muslims. Atheists are Muslim enablers a lot of the time.
>>80852570
>Is it more likely with or without proof?
How would you calculate the likelihood of God existing?
>You're asserting now that the ones who have faith in something you don't think they have reason to have faith in is false?
No! The are JUST as entitled to have faith that it's false. But the trick is that most atheist would NEVER, EVER agree to do so or admit to doing so
>Claims with evidence are more likely as claims that have contradicting and falsities.
How do you prove this?
>It just means that it's logical structures aren't sound and are more likely to be false.
Not necessarily - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
>You don't put out false information and still assume you're a viable source of claims, especially an omnipotent and omniscient God.
Again why are you saying it's necessarily *false* information?
>Absolute evidence? You're only unreasonable within the bounds of religion. Every other aspect of you're life you don't seek "absolute truth", what a retarded argument.
Because as long as God is the guarantor for absolute truth then truth itself is possible
>So everyone can just claim everything without evidence and just say "well you don't know it cant"? This is such a dishonest position, you're beyond relativist mental gymnastics at this point.
Only the monotheistic God has sufficient logical authority to be claimed to exist without evidence
Everything else concerning God is faith
>>80852649
What is truth?
>>80853740
You should step back and consider why you're so insecure about your beliefs anon.
fuck you guys. I'm going to go eat some fucking ice cream now. Pic related.
This is my one and only life and it means a lot to me. I don't know, nor do I care, what happens to me after I die; however I do not believe in an afterlife anyway. I would not want to live again once my time is up.
I am fine with humans being animals who evolved from apes. I am comfortable with the universe being a physical, material place where there is no inherent meaning and its purpose is strictly untilitarian.
My reasons for being moral are that humans have the capability of both selfishness and altruism and I believe that finding a balance that makes us reasonably happy and finding our own purpose in life is good enough.
I'm not perfect and neither is the universe. Chaos, evil and suffering are real but not absolute.
I speak only for myself anon and not all atheists.
