>>684045425
there is, belonging to a religious group has benefits

there isn't a single rational reason to believe in god

>>684045425
CURRENT YEAR

>>684045425
Probably not.

File: 1462852087090.jpg (44 KB, 400x315) Image search: [Google]

44 KB, 400x315

>>684045425
OP man created God, not the other way around

>>684046100
This is never going to be a thing.

>>684045425
Science pretty much has answered all the stuff theism asks about, so nope.

>>684045425
only if you have a phd in philosophy

>>684045973
meh

File: 2zgyant.jpg (80 KB, 700x467) Image search: [Google]

80 KB, 700x467

Easier to find a mate and friends in a scheduled social setting (there are still some not totally fucked in the head people there).

Volunteering at a church looks good on resumes for certain companies (volunteer work generally looks good anywhere). Also pastors make good references.

Odds of winning the heaven lottery are higher if you play the game. Even if nothing happens when you die, it's not like having an extra place to make friends and build up your resume will hurt you.

File: big-bang.jpg (2 MB, 2122x1415) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 2122x1415

>>684047571
True
Origin of man
Origin of life
Origin of earth
Origin of the universe

are all stuff religion used god as an easy answer for, now we know the real natural occurences for all of them and don't need god as an explanation anymore

>>684048133
>things you can do if you are a theist
run for president in america
not pay tax on church related business
be part of a relatively safe group, less murderers etc
receive support, financial, emotional, medical etc from members hoping to earn their deities favour
be reasonably sure all the yung pussy in church is virgin
have access to church run enterprise, like child care, low interest money lending etc

i could go on im sure

>>684048674
Pretty much

File: 1462418009251.jpg (59 KB, 528x528) Image search: [Google]

59 KB, 528x528

>>684045425
Belief systems are an integral part in how our brains evolved. Manipulating your own belief system to empower yourself and strengthen your mind is an important toolset utilized by the strongest members of our society. There is no "rational" reason, but nothing about life or reality is rational by virtue of its own existence. If you believe life is "rational" than you are deluding yourself. Agents of order are unknowingly agents of chaos under the employ of someone or something stronger than themselves. The next stage of human evolution is remembering that we ourselves are god, and god is everything and everything is the same.

>>684048532
>Easier to find a mate and friends in a scheduled social setting (there are still some not totally fucked in the head people there).
my country has an areligious majority.

>Volunteering at a church looks good on resumes for certain companies (volunteer work generally looks good anywhere). Also pastors make good references.
as opposed to secular charities?

>Odds of winning the heaven lottery are higher if you play the game. Even if nothing happens when you die, it's not like having an extra place to make friends and build up your resume will hurt you.
muh pascal's wager.

hint: you can also lose the game much harder for praying to the wrong god.

It's cool to believe in Jesus

>>684050698
no it aint

>>684045425
>rational
>believes in religion

Pick one.

>>684050914
what is it with you faggots not being able to tell the difference between religion and god

>>684051390
What is it with you pedants and pretending that they're mutually exclusive. They're intertwined, regardless of how hypocritical the faith may be.

>>684051390
OP is asking about believing in theism.

>>684051607
>>684051751

they aren't mutually exclusive, they are different things

you can't believe or not believe in religion, it is a real thing regardless of your opinion

I thought you fedora fuckers were meant to be intelligent

>>684048674
this

>>684050407

Well arn't you quite the antagonistic soul.

>my country has an areligious majority.
Sorry I assumed you were in a major country where religion is prevalent.

>as opposed to secular charities?
I did already point out that volunteer work from anywhere was looked upon as good, did I not?

>muh pascal's wager.
So what? It's still a compelling argument to some.

>hint: you can also lose the game much harder for praying to the wrong god.
It all depends on perspective. Also, who's to say there is a right or wrong god? Certainly not you.

If you don't want to believe, fine. You have that prerogative.
Enjoy that. Many people find solace and community in churches. Many find it in other ways.

Just because I don't believe myself, doesn't mean I'm going out of my way to make them feel bad for their own personal decisions. We are rational beings who have the choice to make our own decisions, dispite your feelings.

>>684045425
Belong to no religion and believe in God. It's the safest way.
Still an Atheist though

>>684053645
>safest

>>684053645
What makes it safe?

Can't we all just get along?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY

File: 1446855843678.jpg (20 KB, 599x337) Image search: [Google]

20 KB, 599x337

>>684045425

>>684053565
>their own personal decisions
Nobody got a problem with that. it starts to become a problem when religion is used to carve out a privileged position in public policy.

>Discriminating at the workplace is ille-
>nuh-uh, religious family business!
>o-ok, i'm soooooo sorry, carry on with your discrimination then, god bless your soul

>>684055042
If a God exists, he certainly wouldn't want you to pray to the wrong God. Therefore, belong to no religion.
If a God exists, he wouldn't like to not be believed in either. So, believe in a God and stay religion free.

>>684053645
>believe in God
>Still an Atheist
what?

>>684055820
I am an atheist
To believe is safer

>>684055998
atheist = not believing.
so you're saying you don't believe but think it would be safer to believe? or are you saying you don't really believe but do sortof believe at the same time because it improves your safety?

have you considered that it might decrease your safety because god is a vengeful one and hates believers paying lipservice?

>>684055771
What makes you think a God would care what it's creation believes?

>>684045425
community involvement.

>>684048674
that answers how, not why.

>>684056875
There is no why.

>>684056977
not everyone wants to believe that.

>>684056366
I have
If God values logic, I am safe. If God exists, he wouldn't want me to believe in a wrong God right? So,I can justify myself by not believing.
However, the point I am trying to make is "To belong to no religion and to believe in a God is safer" because if you don't belong to a religion you don't believe in one of the known Gods. But you still believe a superpower exists somewhere. God, if it exists, will appreciate it.

>>684056875
The how is the why, given they're natural occurrences.

File: escapism.png (104 KB, 244x165) Image search: [Google]

104 KB, 244x165

>>684057109

>>684045425
Science has never discredited creationism, if anything it has empowered it.

>>684057413
I assume you made some kind of major typo there?

>>684057215
>If God exists, he wouldn't want me to believe in a wrong God right? So,I can justify myself by not believing.
He could hate you for not-believing just as much as believing in false gods.

Unbelievers and heretics.

>God, if it exists, will appreciate it.
but you didn't live according to the holy scriptures, sinner!

>>684057413
agreed

>>684057665
No. Evolution, the Higgs Boson particle, and the Big Bang devalue theism about as much as understanding how children are born.

>>684058157
all of those discredit it

>>684057413
Creationism was proved to be bullshit in every area

>>684058298
But they don't. They're explanations of a process, not by any means a conclusion.

>>684058676
A natural process that needs zero supernatural bullshit

>>684056595
>didn't live according to the holy scriptures
There are many religions each with different scriptures. How could I have know which was the right one? That is why I chose to believe in none. God will understand for sure.

>>684058676
showing how a process works without external intervention takes many points where a previously-believed-to-be-necessary sentient creator would have to be present. Therefore it reduces the possibility-space of creationism.

Before evolution you could have argued that god created every modern species as it exists. After that you could only argue he created the original life. After a theory of biogenesis you can only argue he created the universe with the planet in it. After understanding the big bang you could only argue he set things into motion etc. etc.

File: j9xgl.jpg (44 KB, 393x330) Image search: [Google]

44 KB, 393x330

I find it funny that no matter how eloquent arguments are in religious debates, they only serve to strengthen the resolve of the other person.

>"Oh yea?? I'll show you!"

>>684045425
If there is a god and he's like he is in the books i wouldn't worship him anyway

>>684059395
Not far enough to have one side murder the other and settle things once and for all.

>>684057873
>didn't live according to the holy scriptures
There are many religions each with different scriptures. How could I have known which was the right one? That is why I chose to believe in none. God will understand for sure.

>>684059147
Dissecting the processes of doesn't discredit the belief that something put those processes in place. You guys seriously don't see how this argument pans out? We'd be better off arguing which came first; the chicken or the egg?

>>684059549
It was not for a lack of trying.

>>684045973
Would blindly believing in something fictional be also rational if it brought you happiness and peace of mind in this existence?

>>684059630
If you postulate that there MUST be something that puts the processes into place, then there also MUST be something that created god.

Otherwise you argue that there can be a final cause, and why not stop at physical processes for final causes?

You can't deny your own opinion. If you believe that science is the only option, then that is your opinion, or possibly truth.

>>684045425
>Atheist
>Win

>>684059630
Emphasis on natural occurences

>>684060337
Santa Clause was the shit. I totally wish that was a lifelong thing. I don't care about logistics.

File: Irreligion_map.png (192 KB, 1800x820) Image search: [Google]

192 KB, 1800x820

>>684060647
If it weren't for mudslimes and niggers we would be winning.

>>684060647
shut up

>>684060395
Science can't rationalize the beginning of the universe anymore than theology. Arguing a "start" is no more reasonable than an "always", that there has always been a universe. Your "something must have created God then" argument doesn't work because it's conceptual, and in theology there was always a God. It defies our understanding of finite and infinite. It's a quantum vacuum that mankind will never answer, but we're damn good at convincing ourselves we can. Cough.

>>684061949
Big Bang?

>>684061949
>Your "something must have created God then" argument doesn't work because it's conceptual, and in theology there was always a God.
I do not follow that argument.

It's theology that argues that there must be a god because something must have been the first cause. But that's basically a +1 argument. why not +0 or +2. I.e. no god or a meta-god. Even if you accept their argument that there must be a first cause, it does not follow that that first cause is anything they call god.

>>684045425

There are plenty, yes.

Is there a single rational, legitimate reason to take issue with the beliefs of other people? No, not really.

>>684062688
What about it? You're telling me a giant ball of gas was just conjured out of nowhere and exploded to create the universe as we know it? That's crazy. Sounds like something out of the Bible. Heh.

No, but really, did you read my post at all? The argument is a quantum vacuum with a recurring theme; what made that? What was before that? Infinity. Stuff we can't grasp because of mortality itself.

>>684063546
that doesn't sound like anything from the bible

>>684063212
>Is there a single rational, legitimate reason to take issue with the beliefs of other people?
It is if they use those believes to justify anti-social behavior or political demands without other foundations.

You know, sharia law for example?

>>684062983
You can't quantify infinity and your insistence that the argument must be something created God for continuity's sake is proof of that. Omnipotency can't create omnipotency, it's a moot point.

>>684063697
The inference was it sounded crazy enough to be out of the bible, not that it literally sounded like something out of the book of Matthew, you daft cunt.

File: necromancer2.jpg (212 KB, 1600x992) Image search: [Google]

212 KB, 1600x992

>>684063546
>giant ball of gas was just conjured out of nowhere
First of all, that's not even close to what happened. Secondly, following the second law of thermodynamics we are basically feasting on the corpse of the big bang. it was one highly-ordered energetic state that has been decaying, becoming more chaotic, ever since.

So in a sense nothing was created. If you wanted a religious interpretation then maybe god died that moment and we are the maggots eating his corpse.

Maybe /tg/ knows of some necromancer religion worshipping death, that would be more in line with what happened.

File: Georg_Cantor.jpg (76 KB, 534x700) Image search: [Google]

76 KB, 534x700

>>684064161
>You can't quantify infinity
Math 101, F, see me after lectures.

>>684064501
You're literally agreeing that it must have always been there which breaks all logic

>>684064671
The integers never end either way. There is no beginning or end therefore it can't be quantified. Pi has not and never will be fully quantified, but it doesn't have to be because it's not a range. Who needs to go back to Math 101 again?

>>684064294
It doesn't sound crazy

>>684065220
You have oh so much to offer, don't you. What with your omnipotent opinions

>>684064793
Time only makes sense for our own universe. So if the big bang arose from a singularity, and not a big bounce for example, then there is no before. and even if it was a big bounce it's possible that the point where it happened basically erased causality between the old and the new.

This discussion trivializes way too many things.

>>684045425
I just hate Richard Dawkins.

>>684065484
Quantum. Vacuum.

>>684064161
I just got here, but are we really doing the irreducibly complex, creation debate right now? Who created God? No one? Then not everything requires a creator. Then, why do we have a creator? I hope that wasn't too terribly butchered, but I'm pretty sure that argument has already been put to rest pretty thoroughly.

Taoist here. You're all wrong. Everything just is. Now shuttup and enjoy your life, or don't I don't mind.

File: 597636844.jpg (96 KB, 500x555) Image search: [Google]

96 KB, 500x555

>>684045425
Does it count if you worship money???

>>684060703

Yep. Your post is simple, yet says it all. I was trying to remember when I "found out" there wasn't a santa clause. Felt a combination of confidence, as I "figured something out". Growth/maturity. And the "end of something".
Ignorance is bliss? I don't know.

>>684063212
There is one reason. Believers usually go beyond metaphysics. But this is where science has explanations (facts about the universe, evoultion, biology, neuro-science, etc) and religion has no sense.

>>684045425
If it makes them happy, then I think it's rational. They say "ignorance is bliss." And it may be true.

Dawkins doesn't seem that happy tbh.

When you boil it down, for all his pontificating and postulating and eyebrow wiggling, he's wasted his life just as much as the religionfags. Maybe more.

The most rational thing would seem to be focusing on your own life, because it'll be over before you know it. And whatever happens after that... nobody knows.

>>684065637
Yep.

>Is there a single rational, legitimate reason to be a theist in 2016?
Low intelligence

>>684063212
>>
I'm sorry, but is fundamentally disagreeing with someone not a rational and or legitimate reason?

I take issue with your statement (what I would consider a belief) right here and now. If your beliefs infringe upon my beliefs, then who gets to prevail?

Fuck it, just cut off my hand and send me to jail. Turns out that I actually do feel bad for looking at that purple camel on the third tuesday of november. Nevermind.

Well nobody knows what happens till they are dead. If you keep to yourself you aren't hurting anyone.

>>684066303
When you're dead you're dead

>>684065604
You have to equate yourself to God for that argument to work, which is once again a matter of concept(flawed at that) not fact.

>>684066303
You cease to exist. We have zero evidence to the contrary.

>>684065912
Dawkins' just a cynic and basically does more harm than good for all ideas he's trying to advocate.

>>684065912
That's it. He is focused on his own life. Everyone is. You use the word wasting, as if you're not doing the same thing that he is.

I would also say that blanket statement like, "If it makes them happy, then I think it's rational." Is a little short-sighted.

Just let the rapists rape, if it makes them happy. (No, I don't think you condone rape, and NO I'm not likening rape to religion. It's merely a point made that perhaps you should be more clear when making statements like that.)

Religion threads are cancer

>>684066703
Congratulations, you are part of the cancer now.

>>684066340
Its a nice idea the afterlife. And if people need a religious dogma to not commit heinous acts then its all good. Carry out horrible things in the name of a god is a bad thing. But people kill one another over any bullshit all the time.

>>684066560
You know, other than the countless people who have died on the table and came back with out of body experiences that are still a subject of debate to this day. Inb4 pineal gland dmt

>>684066504
I'm fairly certain that I don't need to equate myself to God for that argument to work. I'm curious why you think this is the case.

File: chowtime.png (39 KB, 300x217) Image search: [Google]

39 KB, 300x217

>>684066340
>>684066560

And you've received this data from a significantly sized random sample of deceased people?

>>684066927
You absolutely do.. You literally said "if God doesn't need a creator then why do we". Because you're not an omnipotent deity that predates the universe, you fucking dumbass.

>>684066940
We know this from examining the brain after death.

>>684045425

Yes. Built in social network, and social influence. Christians are plentiful, and easily manipulated. Pretend to be one and have influence over a vast amount of people.

>>684066940
Well, dead people are certainly dead. The first guy got that right. The second guy, seems to be leaning a bit. Your neural activity and your consciousness are definitively linked, but AFAK there's still a ton of things we don't understand about the brain. There's even fewer things we understand about the nature of consciousness. I've even heard theories that the second before we die lasts an eternity through chemical processes similar to the processing of DMT.

TLDR; We don't know for certain, and that's literally not a big deal.

>>684067254
But... What if he is? I believe that

>>684067585
Something tells me he does too

>>684066678
Indeed, I'm wasting my Thursday night on /b/.

Dawkins has wasted significantly more time than I will on this subject.

As far as the statement I made about happiness, I thought the "it" was clear. I apologize. Yes, I was talking about religion/theism. Certainly not rape.

But to add to it, I'm somebody who believes that you should be able to do whatever you wish with your life as long as it doesn't harm someone else. Many members of my family go to church on Sunday. I generally sleep in. We still get along. I support their right to go, they support my right not to go. I'm not offended by them saying grace at the table as long as I get to eat immediately afterward.

>>684045425
if rationalism is what logic supposes, and by that your individual subjective logic, you've already made the answer a clear yes.

>>684066923
Those aren't exactly reproducible experiments.

If you wanted to design a proper experiment we would kill people and try to bring them back while laying out some cards next to the table. If they were truly hovering over their own bodies they could tell us which cards they saw with a chance significantly better than random.

Some might be lost in the process, but we can repeat this hundreds of times until we either have solid data or someone screams "ok, maybe we were wrong".

>>684066940
Yes, zero of them reported being alive after destruction of their brain.
I take that as no evidence in favor of life after death.

>>684067254
who says he is?

>>684067873
Finally someone who gets it.

>>684067477
Yeah, you get the idea

>>684067254
A does not follow from B.

I can create life without being omnipotent. So why is an omnipotent creator required?

>>684067990
thanks buddy. I think he meant to say is there an empirical reason to believe.

>>684067254
Ouch. That's not very nice. Okay, so you have a screen where I posted text, and you didn't read it properly.

I got you, don't worry.

"Who created God? No one? Then not everything requires a creator."

That's what I said, and it's a really dumbed down version of an argument I've seen a bunch. The only reason I bother saying that, is because I encourage you to look up debates had on this subject. They're very interesting.

Back on topic. I can't equate myself to God in this argument, because the entire purpose is proving His existence. If I were to do that, it would become circular (eg: your goal).

>>684067949
By out of body I didn't mean literally floating over the operating table, I meant otherworldly, although there has been plenty of cases where the person will claim to float out of their body/look over it. Really the question you have to answer is is there a soul, which hardly fits into the realm of science. Although if you believe Dr. MacDougall it weighs roughly 20 grams.

>>684067873
But it makes sense only in a metaphysic way. Otherwise, it's not a religion but fooling yourself and others.

>>684068329
No intelligent practicing theist will ever attempt to present you with physical evidence of God, to them the evidence is life itself. The logical response is to say there is no way to effectively disprove God.

>>684052262
Execpt Robespierre was a theist

>>684067688
Well, then we share the same idea about happiness.

I guess that we do disagree on what it means to waste time, however. Anyway, sorry for nitpicking.

>>684068376
this is abstractedness and not an argument.

You still lose the point on "rationality." Metaphysics is what is behind every concept, and as such it's way too reductionist and eliminates any argument you might want to prove when you call it into question.

>>684068548
I didn't mention anything about physical proof? If we are not questioning God's existence, then why are we having the conversation initially? I'm officially confused.

File: 12274435_10153744573214483_7170659323506622783_n.jpg (51 KB, 502x960) Image search: [Google]

51 KB, 502x960

No not at all. Religion is just a myth that people are brought up into and are too emotionally invested just to quit.

Religion is dying. No doubt about it.

>>684068892
You said the entire purpose is proving his existence. unless your definition of proof is metaphysical, in which case.. wat

>>684045425
There's contradiction, misinterpretation, and hypocrisy in the bible. Not to mention that most of it is hypothesis based off stories people have been telling for hundreds of years, which might not even hold true or accurate anymore. Whereas science is widely accepted as fact and has repeatedly been examined, tested, and analyzed to determine it's credibility, or at the very least developed theoricts that can neither completely prove nor disprove anything. You can believe in God if you want, no one really gives a shit whether or not you think a man in the sky exists or not regardless, but how about you kill yourself OP, and let us know whether or not you meet the man yourself or not, then post your factual evidence. And cite your sources too, pussy! This isn't 8th grade

TL;DR OP is going to hell for being a faggot

>>684052052
Religion is the belief of a higher order which is implied with a god. There's no way out of that implication either.

>>684069290
I disagree. We have no evidence to suggest theists are correct, but they could be. If you would call that irrational, then so be it. I would call it wishful thinking.

>>684068360
>I meant otherworldly
and why should I give that more credibility than an LSD trip?

>Although there has been plenty of cases where the person will claim to float out of their body/look over it
Even some of them experiencing that would be good enough for the card test.

>Really the question you have to answer is is there a soul
you first have to define "soul" before you can test it.

>>684068548
>to them the evidence is life itself.
ask them how that is evidence. because considering evolution and what we know about physics it hardly is direct evidence. it would sound more like a very very long and tenuous chain of arguments where at each point they would have to prove that there is no alternative explanation that works just as well or better.

>>684069290
...No communists atheists in Russia and Cambodia were always peaceful.. whitepeople.

>>684045425
reason and rationalism sound like intellectual terms but the things we know best are from experience, not just logic and reasoning.

Most people believe in god because of rationalism.
Eg. There is a universe. All things are in this universe. It originated at some point. It must have been created.

Arguments like that can't even be disproved! So use your head and don't just intelligence signal to all the atheists here.

>>684069523
The entire purpose of the argument, yes. It's an argument generated by theists to reach a conclusion that God exists. I assumed I was arguing with one?

Of course I don't believe that the end result is any sort of proof. I'm arguing against that in the first place (well, technically I'm not even arguing. I've just lightly read up on this stuff).

Does that clear anything up? If not, make me look slow some more (I tend to be, sometimes) and we'll continue.

>>684070114
That's a lie. Communists aren't evil.

>>684070122
True.

>>684068063
How do you not follow? You have to equate yourself to the idea of God, which is impossible, to make a valid argument that you don't need a creator.. Were you not born? Were your parents not born? Do you have the answers to the universe? No? Then the two aren't really comparable. Jesus Christ. It's a discussion of divine design, not misguided nihilism.

Claiming that science has answered everything, yet the law of the conservation of energy only explains so much. There has to be a catalyst, an outside force. An outside force could be considered "God" by definition. Discuss?

>>684070928
>there has to be
not really?

>>684070928
What do you mean only explains so much?

>>684070300
I'm agnostic at best. There isn't an end result, the argument never ends. Science analyzes and explains a process and religion/belief gives it a purpose. The two go hand-in-hand whether we like it or not; they both stem from our need to understand/rationalize the unknown.

>>684067873
>>684067990
>>684068376
>>684068691
>>684070122
Anyone have anything to add or are we done?

>>684070757
Was I born? Yes
Were my parents born? Yes
Do I have the answers to the univ- What?
Do YOU have the answers to the universe? Holy shit. How did we make that jump? What a ridiculous question. Of course YOU have the answers. They are in a book, written by an omnipotent being whose existence can't be proven, and they can't be contested based on faith alone. What a convenient, argumentative guarantee you've got there. Is this the part where I literally concede to your argument based on nonsense?

>>684068193
>>684071620
Forgot to mention this

I've had an NDE and I don't believe in God, but I believe in the afterlife

>>684070122
The world in our heads isn't the same as the world outside. Jumping to the conclusion at god exists is because your brain rationalises things it doesn't understand.

ITT trolls trolling trolls

>>684071523
I strongly disagree with you. Science analyzes physical reality, and God is (at best) an entity that is outside of our (at least, current, conceivable) measurement. He is metaphysical, and science is physical. To say the two go hand-in-hand is ignorance, in my opinion. Science exists not to understand the unknown, but to make sense of the physical reality around us. God does not qualify for this.

>>684071953
not clear what side your on if any on this

File: virgin3gifts.jpg (35 KB, 411x336) Image search: [Google]

35 KB, 411x336

I have anecdotal, but personally compelling, evidence of something or someone that can predict my future and cares about me.

God? Dunno, but prophesies came true, and science does not yet explain what I experienced.

File: house lip.gif (238 KB, 500x224) Image search: [Google]

238 KB, 500x224

>>684072045

splitting logic to fit his religious indoctrination.

>top kek.

>>684071953
I didn't say there was a deity, I merely said there are many reasons to believe there is. Not good ones in my opinion, but hey, the point is proven.
>>684071620

>>684072275
god is nonsense come on

>>684069734
Believing claims without evidence would be irrational. Just the possibility of some outlandish claim being true does not mean you should pay attention to them unless they also bring some evidence to back up that claim.

Otherwise I demand that everyone treat my claim that you burn in hell unless you spend 30 minutes per week hopping around on one leg with exactly the same zeal as they treat any other religious claims.

HOPPY DEMANDS IT.

>>684071953
In either event, you are arriving at a conclusion that is not entirely supported by facts. Any reasonable atheist will concede that if God turns out to be the real deal, then he will start fucking praying.

>>684072291
I'm confused. You think I'm religious? I have no deistic beliefs...

>>684072325
You mean not scientific or not empirical. That's the whole point. Reason in itself takes steps and concludes without evidence all the time.

>>684070757
>You have to equate yourself to the idea of God, which is impossible
Says who? I create things. creating a universe is only a few bits more complex, certainly finite in effort. I'm not omnipotent. Neither is any supposed creator.

In fact, some very dumb, unintelligent things create stuff every day. So he who created the universe might actually be a fairly dumb, unintelligent process.

>>684072324
I can't state that with certainty, so wont

>>684071796
you=/=god

Does that help?

It's like talking to a toddler. The "why do I need a creator of God doesn't" argument doesn't work because you're not comparable to God in any shape or form. For starters, because you're fucking born. Yes, you can create too, but it's a result of a cycle/process that theists easily(or conveniently, idgaf) attribute to God.

The point? There is no fucking point to this tedious discussion. It's all conceptual.

>>684072713
There's no evidence to support it

>>684072083
God is a result of the absurdity that results from attempting to apply meaning to a meaningless universe. The universe in your head and the one outside are made of different stuff for different "reasons". The problems of explanations of the universe are problems in our heads, not problems outside of our heads.

>>684072633
I don't think you are talking about creation, but merely rearranging, which is all men can do.

>>684072792
so what you're trying to say is that my working model of the universe doesn't have a god in there. well, yes. you're right. Doubt it ever will.

>>684072325
Perhaps I am oversimplifying things, but here's what I think about what you said:

Believing in claims without evidence would be irrational.
Evidence for God = 0
Evidence against God = 0
Either belief = irrational

The only logical belief, to me anyway, is health skepticism and agnosticism.

As for your example of hell, that exists independent of the belief of an intelligent creator, so I choose, conveniently, not to entertain it. Ha-ha.

>>684072539

you sound like someone who is afraid of there being a God and you making the wrong assumptions. There's fear in your words. You're playing pascal's wager, cause you dont have the balls to simply state that there is no reasonable evidence to support the existence of a God or Gods.

You, are a pussy my friend.

>>684072045
I'm sorry but are you fucking retarded? Because "making sense of the physical reality around us" clearly infers it's UNKNOWN, not KNOWN. holy shit

>>684045425
If theist ever THOUGHT than they wouldn't be thiest.

>>684070928
Even assuming for a moment that all your other premises are correct

>An outside force could be considered "God" by definition.

Then you're saying you're willing to tack the label "god" onto practically anything. Which makes it a fairly meaningless and arbitrary label from which very little additional information could be derived.

Let's call it phlogiston instead. Or luminiferous aether, doesn't that sound spiritual?

>>684073122
i g2g bc fags like this. He obv said that he doesnt even believe in deism. deism is the weakest form of god. it's like a pantheist. no consequence in the real world. k.

>>684072723
I'm sad that you once again ignored what I'd written.

Why is it that human kind needs a creator?

>>684072045
>and God is (at best) an entity that is outside of our (at least, current, conceivable) measurement.
how do you know that? those holy books of yours must have been written somehow, which suggests interaction with the physical world, thus measurable effects and thus within the purview of science.

>>684072933
And I'll add, when you think about it, god is not really an explanation at all! It's like saying "I don't understand" without having to admit it.

>>684073177
And so what? He says about purposes.

>>684073419
Nobody ever said they needed a creator, I've been attempting to explain to you that your reasoning for why they wouldn't need one is extremely flawed though.

>>684072792
I have evidence, which is personally compelling. I can't reproduce it, so it is just opinion to you, nor is it proof of deity.

But I have experienced things currently inexplicable by science, and am a scientist.

So, I can make no judgement, but to be honest, must keep an open mind.

>>684073065
>The only logical belief, to me anyway, is health skepticism and agnosticism.

Pascal's pussy wager.

Fuck off, pussy.

>>684073122
There is no reasonable evidence to support the existence of a God or gods.

Are you good to continue?

>>684073539
You what nigger?

>>684045425
rational ≠ theist
thats the problem

>>684045425
of course there is, to get into heaven baka OP

>>684073177
How does that infer that? I don't think you understand what infer or physical or reality or sense or science means.

Science takes a (physical, observable, testable) phenomenon like gravity, and explains it by eliminating variables until we arrive at a conclusion that is, ostensibly, fullproof. This is a physical observation of reality, and we make sense of it. This cannot be done for something we cannot interact with.

>>684073633

Go on, pussy.

>>684073580
He's not making Pascal's wager, which concludes that only belief in God is reasonable.

He's saying that neither is there evidence that there is no god, so honestly must conclude he cannot definitively know.

>>684061118
This map look alot like the one that shiw poverty over the world. Only exeption is wtf china.

>>684073558
If you don't have an answer to that question, then we either do not disagree, or you are full of shit... I think.

>>684045425
no, nor is there a reason to be atheist

>>684073065
>Perhaps I am oversimplifying things
yes, you are.

The issue is that we cannot assume that every random claim is true. Therefore the default assumption is that every claim is false unless some evidence in its favor is presented. There are some further conditions, but this might suffice, considering that there is no evidence.

True, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But this only applies if you have strong prior reason to postulate somethings existence, e.g. because several other observations strongly indicate their is a common underlying cause to a process we have no observed directly yet.

For example until recently we have not observed gravitational waves, but that absence of direct evidence was not taken as evidence of absence because we already had the theory of relativity whose other aspects have been well-tested and because we already observed other phenomena such as binary neutron star inspiraling which is best explained with gravitational wave emission.

But as you say, there is zero evidence for god. We're lacking a motivating foundation and a testable, falsifiable prediction that would make it even worthwhile to consider that any such claims are true.

Therefore the default assumption kicks in that it is not true and it's on the proponents to present something to convince us otherwise.

>>684074072
I will? The ball is in your court, as far as I know. I cleared up a misunderstanding, and now you're free to refute or agree with me?

Do you even know why we are arguing?

>>684073992
Did the definition of unknown suddenly fucking change? Or are you too proud to admit that something previously not known is unknown? Do I need to post the Webster dictionary definition for you, Dumbass MD?

>>684045425
Only the Jewish god has unhealthy obsession with belief. Normal gods are cool if you obey the taboos, fulfill rites and make sacrifices.
I.e. Jewish god is like psychotic wife - she is never content with simply not cheating her, she want you to not even want to fuck some young Qt.
TLDR - Jewish god is mentally unstable bitch

Is my grandmother "looking down upon me" whilst I masturbate? That is the question.

>>684073065

Nope.

Because the rejection of a proposition is not a proposition in itself.

By your logic it's irrational to deny the existence of anything anyone cares to state may exist simply because one can't provide evidence for that denial - which is always the case with unfalsifiable claims.)

If someone says: "I believe there is a microscopic, invisible, super-intelligent teapot floating in orbit around Saturn."

It is impossible to provide evidence to refute this claim.

However it is NOT irrational to do so precisely because the PROPOSITION has been made without evidence.

Likewise with claims of a God.

There will likely never be any evidence to positively disprove the existence of a deity. However the claim FOR one's existence has been made without putting forward any evidence in support of one. Ever. In the entire history of religious apologetics, philosophy, metaphysics and theology. Not a single proponent of deism or theism has been able to move past claims of revelation, weak tortology, the dishonest misuse of real science or unfalsifiable corruptions of logic.

Therefore it is patently rational to deny the existence of God.

Agnosticism is the position of the apathetic moron.