>atheists are just to retarded to understand
>>55307169
>if you're a weak faggot and cannot resolve your beliefs with facts
If your beliefs are so easily changed you're a faggot and/or your beliefs were shit in the first place.
>>55307169
atheists and religious people are equally as retarded as each other. Only empiricism has given us the internet and telephone and such. Empiricism is based in agnosticism.
Agnostics are most based
>>55307169
>Heisenberg
>>55307297
>not changing opinions based on research
There's shit out there that will blow your mind. Unfortunately it's beyond words and you can't really believe it until you live it so good luck if you do.
Agnosticism isn't a middle ground. You can be agnostic atheist or agnostic atheist but not purely agnostic.
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, Deism is waiting for you."
I just thought you christfaggots should know what Heisenberg was referring to since you're too stupid to understand parables.
>>55307330
Agnosticism isn't a stance itself. If you are agnostic you are either agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.
But tell me how not having a belief in a god is as stupid as believing in it? I find the latter much more dumb.
>>55307400
>expecting an athiest to be able to make up his own mind
top lel romania
>>55307297
>>55307169
You are both taking it too seriously.
This is not the time for infighting.
Europe needs you.
Britain needs you.
>>55307408
He's right, because theism deals with belief and gnosticism deals with knowledge. They can be expansions of each other but not replacements.
>>55307482
>Europe needs you.
>Britain needs you.
Pick one.
>>55307439
No I just don't have enough information to decide whether the universe was created or came from nothing. I don't have enough evidence, I don't know enough, so I'm not going to arrogantly assume I know.
Having a solid 100% belief in anything is retarded, you should always be open to change
>>55307432
You mean how he means that you live in a world where materialism will come to you naturally, but the more you investigate you find that it isn't the end all ?
What were you saying about misunderstanding parables?
If you want an example of this just ask yourself this:
Why is it the largest groups of atheists are birthed from the worlds worst school system in the industrial world?
Asking a 12 year old to read the bible = propaganda.
Asking them to understand multiple fields of science, and to have a competent understanding of extremely complex issues = no problem.
In one breath = American education = trash.
Next breath = Atheist's are just rational, smart human beings, and everyone else is just not smart enough.
What's interesting about that is 2/3rds of americans cannot even read at a high school level after leaving public education.
But I'm supposed to believe they understand life, and it's beginnings. Ohh-fucking-kay.
I refuse to believe most atheist can actually read the bible much less have even a base level of understanding.
>>55307678
>Having a solid 100% belief in anything is retarded, you should always be open to change
Exactly. Atheism isn't a belief though. You are atheist if you either actively disbelief, or have a lack of belief in god.
>>55307427
Neah, keep at it, keep studying any science. After you have the basics of understanding to start getting what quantum mechanics is about you'll reach the conclusion Feinman reached, and the modern take on science. Keep going at it even farther and eventually you'll notice the weirdest things.
When you pass the weirdest things you could imagine you'll find out that what's really shocking is that none of it is really weird and has a certain order that was once known but was forgotten due to our upbringing.
But as I said, words don't do the experience justice so you have to live if to believe it.
>>55307396
>Jews not wanting you to be atheist
>>55307712
>Wall of text posted by religious cunt spouting god knows what.
Yeah I'm not reading all that Shit.
>>55307330
Agnosticism and atheism are pretty much the same thing: just because you're too much of a coward to say that god and unicorns don't exist, that doesn't mean you're going to live your life any differently.
>>55307815
From my post:
>What's interesting about that is 2/3rds of americans cannot even read at a high school level after leaving public education.
Better add canada to that list.
>>55307396
>>55307796
he wasn't Jewish
>>55307169
An intelligent creator may or may not exist. A Christian/Muslim/whatever """""""""god""""""""" absolutely doesn't, hence it's pointless to even think about it.
>>55307330
Infer.
>>55307927
This is the realization all intelligent men come to.
We just don't know, and trying to find out is the fun.
>>55307927
true he's talking about deism, just like Einstein and most scientists
Agnosticism is a type of atheism.
>>55307439
>Agnosticism isn't a stance itself. If you are agnostic you are either agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.
I have never understood this argument.
Agnostic means you believe god's existence is unproven, and therefore he may or may not exist. Theist means belief in god, and atheist means disbelief in god.
Saying that Agnostic itself is not a stance is like saying although you don't know what color shirt I am wearing right now, you MUST believe it to be either black or white, rather than simply accepting that you don't know.
>>55307858
>Muh flags
Yeah I'm not canadian but thanks
Americans can't read cause most are evangelicals who end up working at gas stations. If only the states actually invested in base education rather than fighting wars for the fucking Saudis
Lmao there are people who unnironically are atheists kek
Do what you want,our ancestors didn't die with tens of millions in vain to defend christianity, just keep in mind that if you become atheist, the Bolshevist Jews alrdy won
>>55307927
Lightning is an act of thor, don't question it kids!
Anytime someone says don't think about something you have to really think about why?
One of the biggest factors for me to join back into the religious camp was probably this more than anything.
Atheist groups are like an echo chamber. They allow absolutely no dissent, and will use their numbers to silence anyone that doesn't follow in line.
Even if you're number 1 in your field and above every single other scientist in your field in history they will still claim you're an idiot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXrYhINutuI
Religious people will literally listen to anything, and then dismantle it based on it's merits. Atheist deny it purely on it's context.
So for instance they deny god, but will completely invalidate any investigation based on the fact they can't know, but then become atheist in that he doesn't exist for sure.
It's like a philosophical inception.
>>55308033
>Saying that Agnostic itself is not a stance is like saying although you don't know what color shirt I am wearing right now, you MUST believe it to be either black or white, rather than simply accepting that you don't know.
No, that would be atheism. Atheism doesn't mean a disbelief, it also means a "lack of belief". So "agnostics" are actually atheists. As long as you don't believe in god you are atheist.
To all religious people out there. I have no problem with the belief in God. But the notion that you know who God is and in many cases, how he thinks; doesn't that seem ignorant to you? How do you justify it? Genuinely curious.
>>55308021
Exactly. I always laugh when morons keep spouting that "all great scientists were believers" meme. There were some, like Newton who was obsessed with studying the Bible, but that's a minority.
>>55308056
>buying in to the biggest scam of them all
No thanks Escobar
>>55308056
>Lmao there are people who unnironically are atheists kek
Yeah, outside of third world crapholes like yours, it's pretty common.
>>55308044
Wow, butthurt much?
>>55308143
Also where do you get off insulting the intelligence of others yet lack the intelligence to even construct a proper sentence.
Are you just nodding out from all that euphoria?
>>55308242
>webm
My sides. They're gone.
>>55307169
No doubt he is right, there is a supreme being. But its name is not Yahweh.
>>55308242
You bet your ass I am.
you cunts are all fucking retarded go piss in the wind instead of this fedora thread
lol so religionfags think what Heisenberg said automatically validates all their middle east saga bullshit
Newsflash, the god of believer physicists is not your Space Zombie Trio Force, but an absolutely abstract representation of the universe as a whole thats closest to pantheist ideas.
Science gives you equations and some interpretation but it can't explain the ontological basis of the world as thats philosophy; and whatever philosophical idea you accept is entirely just an opinion.
>>55308107
You're a retard. Being an atheist means not believing in any known god, usually because there is no good reason to; proving the non-existance of something is literally impossible since we'll never be able to see every single thing in this universe.
>>55308033
To use your shirt example.
Theism=Believing it's black
Agnosticism=Not believing it's black
Atheism=Not believing it's black
>>55308033
I don't know if Buddha exists.
I don't believe in Buddha.
I'm agnostic to Buddha. I'm also Atheist with regard to Buddha.
Point to the flaw of the logic above.
>>55307169
Nice appeal to authority.
>>55308033
>>55307330
Gnosticism refers to knowledge, it makes no claim on your faith/belief. Theism and gnosticism are mutually exclusive.
Agnostic atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god and also doesn't know if a god exist. Vast majority of atheists belong in this group, and if you call yourself "agnostic", this is you as well.
Gnostic atheists don't believe in god and know there is no god. These people are what you found recognize from internet memes as "fedoras".
Why does a foreigner have to educate you on your own language? Fucking embarrassing.
>>55308381
>You're a retard.
Ok, fair enough.
>Being an atheist means not believing in any known god, usually because there is no good reason to; proving the non-existance of something is literally impossible since we'll never be able to see every single thing in this universe.
If you don't believe in god then what are you saying?
Do you have a reason for your lack of belief?
Since there is no proof you've already admitted your position isn't based on logic but on a preference.
So do you crusade against loch ness, and ghosts too? Or do they not have the appeal of the feeling you get by driving a wedge in between you and those around you?
>>55307169
>to retarded
lol
>>55308690
>Do you have a reason for your lack of belief?
>Since there is no proof you've already admitted your position isn't based on logic but on a preference.
Lack of belief in a deity is the default position; nobody is born a theist, they have to be taught to believe.
Since theism is something you are taught, the burden of proof lies on the one making the extraordinary claim, that a god exists in this case. This is just basic fucking logic. You can't turn around and say "I don't need to prove it you need to prove it". That's not how logic works.
>>55308409
Cause and Effect, how did we get from nothing to now which is everything?
Is reality real ? (God by mono-theistic religion definition e.g Christianity's definition of God can be simply broken down to basically the whole universe.)
How did we get free will which defies laws of physics?
>>55308690
Not beliving in something you don't know nor trust should always be your standard position, otherwise you're just a gullible idiot; you can change your mind later if given enough reason to.
Also, as I already said, being agnostic rather than atheist won't change anything since you'd still act in the same exact way (e.g. not going to church or praying).
>>55308823
>what is a typo
>>55307169
The father of quantum physics is Einstein
Funny, I feel opposite and it's strange to me that more people don't.
After only one semester of physics, I find it hard to believe that this all occurred randomly. It's all too perfect, too neat, and too organized. The mathematics that govern the things you see in everyday life are so simple & make so much sense that it seems like it HAD to be intelligently designed.
But what do I know?
Don't be too harsh on them, especially on a Monday!
It's just been one day since they got their weekly fill of their designated cult propaganda.
I hope you all made sure to go to church yesterday! Wouldn't want you to get in trouble with your leaders!
>>55308870
Free will is a bit of a paradox, and that illusion is born from our limited, subjective viewpoint.
We are all just as much a natural happening as everything out there. We're just aware of what we're doing.
>>55308824
>Lack of belief in a deity is the default position; nobody is born a theist, they have to be taught to believe.
Funny in the next sentence you make a statement about proofs required by claims. Oh fuck it.
>Since theism is something you are taught, the burden of proof lies on the one making the extraordinary claim, that a god exists in this case.
Have you ever seen what happens when you put a gun to someones head? Besides the fact that people usually, piss or shit their pants the next thing you find out is it turns the hardest atheist into the hardest theist?
Why is that? Even pagan societies reflect this reality by the fact they would have religious councils of priests?
>You can't turn around and say "I don't need to prove it you need to prove it".
>That's not how logic works.
Atheism = God doesn't exists!
Theist = Yes, he does.
Atheism = Prove it.
Theist = I can't, I believe on faith, what's your reason for disbelief.
Atheist = Faith. (If they are honest)
Theist = Then why are you attacking me?
Atheist = Dad, wasn't around. (probably 90% of atheist I have met = dad's a coward, abusive, or wasn't around.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCtOZ5ibL_g
>>55308932
no, to be exact Max Planck was, and he was a deist
>>55308870
>how did we get from nothing to now which is everything?
I think what's so hard for people to understand with this is how incredibly long time actually is.
Getting here from single-celled life makes complete sense, chemically, when you consider that we've had almost 4 BILLION years to evolve life.
To put this into perspective, that's two million times the length of time that has passed since Jesus walked the earth.
When you're talking about time in that perspective, evolution through chemical reactions is very plausible, and practically guaranteed.
If a chemical reaction has energy, and a stable environment to react, it tends to compose rather than decompose.
The Miller-Urey experiment shows this, and it ran for a very short amount of time with limited elements and molecules.
>>55308962
What if we live in a multi-verse and there exists a billion other universes where these precise conditions never came to be? I find it hard to believe you have studied any physics at all if god is the first conclusion you jump to. Falseflag christboy.
>>55308824
>God's (more particularly, judaeo-christianity) definition can be simply be broken down to the 'Entire Universe', or just plain 'Reality'
>Doesn't believe reality is real
WHAT-YEAR-IS-IT-MEME.jpg?
What I want to know is when did atheism go from simply not believing in God to being a religion.
>>55308962
I took Biology/Electrical Engineering.
You notice any classes surrounding any sort of design, or engineering has more religious than usual seeing as they know how things have to be designed and can inherently understand the difficulties.
So when you cross over to the social sciences on campus and you hear a single authoritarian shrill voice of ATHEISM you can rest easy know that ignorance really isn't bliss.
I was an athiest most of my life. Probably one of my worst choices. What better way to isolate yourself, and to devalue all life around you.
>>55309094
religion "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal god or gods". So, never.
>>55309143
Don't be pedantic Sweden you know what I meant.
>>55309078
>What if we live in a multi-verse and there exists a billion other universes where these precise conditions never came to be?
Let's see. You will never know this because you can't test it.
The only people that even believe in multiverses by default are those arguing against a theological worldview.
Like I keep saying atheist are just as religious but half as honest.
No point in being honest when you have nobody to hold you accountable. Especially when the person you lie to the most is you.
If god made everything, why'd he do such a half-assed job, especially with human anatomy?
>>55309033
>Have you ever seen what happens when you put a gun to someones head? Besides the fact that people usually, piss or shit their pants the next thing you find out is it turns the hardest atheist into the hardest theist?
Phil Robertson, pls.
>>55309094
>atheism is a religion
[citation needed]
>>55309033
You are seriously fucking retarded if you think lack of belief requires proof. There is a reason the positive claim has the burden of proof in logic, otherwise world would be in fucking chaos.
Aliens kidnapped me yesterday and told me they created me so I could be the god of earth, better start kissing my feet you filthy peasant because you can't prove me wrong.
>>55309076
Pure "Nothingness" though.
If you think the universe formed via science, then it would be impossible because molecules can't MAGICALLY formed from absolutely nothing.
>>55309211
You won't find God on /pol/.
>>55309172
>Pretending to know God
>Being this arrogant
>>55309143
You know you could just be the mind of a simulation.
That would still require a "god" creator right?
You think it's all just a coincidence you live in a cosmic explosion and yet we have the perfect amount of:
Distance from the sun, salt to water ration, perfect number of planets rotating perfectly to give us a comet shield, perfect distance from the sun, sun is in perfect state for life, earths rotation perfect, speed perfect, distance from the moon perfect.
Ask yourself this: What are the odds you're born on a planet with elclipeses? Have you ever wondered that.
You realize they won't be around in another million years right?
Oh of course you did, you're an atheist.
Also what are the odds were in the perfect spot to observe space outside of us and not be blocked by the clouding from our larger family galaxy the milky way.
Once you've gone over that look up the probability for perfect protein synthesis by enatiomers.
The irony of this all is the guys looking for aliens actually came up with all these coincidences LOL and came to the conclusion there might not be life out there after all because of the probability.
>>55309265
Only his followers
>>55309166
You will never know if a god created the universe either. So arguing either way is fucking pointless which I was pointing out if you can read.
>atheist are just as religious
Do you really think you can try and redefine words just so you can attack those things easier? Sounds exactly like what feminists try to do.
>>55309311
>You know you could just be the mind of a simulation.
The whole universe is just a big what if machine. One day that question will either be answered or become uninteresting then the process begins anew.
>>55309265
But I thought God was everywhere
>>55307815
It's okay that you can't read.
>>55309214
>Aliens kidnapped me yesterday and told me they created me so I could be the god of earth, better start kissing my feet you filthy peasant because you can't prove me wrong.
Yes, I can aliens don't exist. Proof = there is none. Infact one could argue the mental manifestation of someone claiming aliens exist is usually the early onset of schizophrenia, or paranoia.
The second half of your paragraph in saying "Make you god of the earth", is quite revealing towards your psychological state.
Atheist usually are not the strongest in mind or body. Get help.
>>55309311
>Distance from the sun, salt to water ration, perfect number of planets rotating perfectly to give us a comet shield, perfect distance from the sun, sun is in perfect state for life, earths rotation perfect, speed perfect, distance from the moon perfect.
You forgot oceans: it's amazing that all the water is perfectly shaped to fit into them.
>>55309288
I seldom see the chef who cooks my meal at a restaurant, but if he does a shitty job of it I'm gonna complain regardless.
Like how thin the birth-canal is on human women, when was that ever a good idea?
And that god's name is Wōden.
>>55309404
How can you prove there are no aliens without disproving your own god in the progress?
>>55307427
>Hollandse nuchterheid: the post
Blijf strijden broer, blijf strijden.
>>55307297
>If your beliefs are so easily changed you're a faggot
Faith is for faggoys
>>55309352
>You will never know if a god created the universe either.
How do you know that?
Funny how you fancy yourself intelligent but keep making the most amateur blunders in logic.
Claims without fact are opinion. Repeat that 10x before you reply.
>Do you really think you can try and redefine words just so you can attack those things easier? Sounds exactly like what feminists try to do.
Redifine words, I stated opinion, as opinion. Also trying to lump me in with femnist. lol ouch.
Don't get desperate. Stomp me out fedora.
Also where do you fit on this scale in your opinion?
>>55309430
God is metaphysical dip shit. Meaning outside the universe. Just like your multiverse.
Aliens live in this universe ? Right? I don't believe in aliens as their is no way to even infer their existence.(notice i used infer)
I thought american education was bad.
>>55307396
What a retarded image.
>>55309414
>in permanent search of wisdom and excitement
>sacrifices his eye for the mead of wisdom
>sacrifices himself for knowledge
>despite knowing the outcome, always fights against the end
Best god.
>>55307169
>appeal to authority
Heisenberg never demonstrated God exists, so his quote isnt worth anything
>>55309033
>Theist = I can't, I believe on faith, what's your reason for disbelief.
>Atheist = Lack of evidence
>>55309410
God designed life to look like the product of evolution as a test of faith.
>>55309493
Hur mår du bubben? Berätta för mig
>>55309529
>said nothing about christianity
>attacks me with something about christianity
Classic USA.
>>55309568
>apathiest = doesn't give a shit
>>55309311
you know, we don't know how much of that is actually necessary for life.
>>55307169
This physicist is a fucking retard. Just because some physicist 50 years ago believed in god doesn't mean god exists, dumb fuck. There were scientists in nazi germany who believed in bullshit pseudo-scientific racial theories.
>>55309472
>How do you know that?
Prove it. If you can't, there you go.
>>55309516
>God is metaphysical
According to your belief. But that's not true for all christians, let alone all theists. It's either extremely clever or extremely convenient that you what you believe in can never be proven but that's what belief is after all. I'll choose to live my life according to the facts though, and not knowing is not enough for me to say "god done it".
>>55309568
You realize faith is believing something without proof?
So if you believe the opposite side of your argument is crazy for believing something without proof, what does that say about you arguing against something you by default view as a fairy tale?
Are you beginning to see the fault of you logic.
Guys, I know ghosts don't exist that's why I need to write books I get paid for and seminars to remind people they don't exist.
So ask yourself, if you believe someone is wrong,crazy, and full of bluster -- why do you engage them in such a way?
Don't you think that says a great deal about you and not about the other person.
Unless you came here to help us of course.
>>55309577
>Mother and child both die in childbirth
>lol it was just a test you guys
What a prick
>>55309653
Prove what? That I can be half-passed out from carbon monoxide poisoning and still see through your half-baked logic?
>According to your belief. But that's not true for all christians, let alone all theists. It's either extremely clever or extremely convenient that you what you believe in can never be proven but that's what belief is after all. I'll choose to live my life according to the facts though, and not knowing is not enough for me to say "god done it".
That has to be one of the dumbest posts I have ever read. Let's see here.
False equivication
Strawman
ad-hoc fallacy
Want go for another trifecta?
2.
Philosophy.
concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth.
concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, or substance.
AKA prima facie. But keep going on finngolian.
>>55309252
Elements are formed out of hydrogen being bombarded with protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Hydrogen is formed by sub-atomic particles condensing. Sub atomic particles can exist in quantum states, meaning if all the matter in the universe became these quantum particles they could all condense into a single point.
Elements take on oxidation states and form into molecules. An element like sodium WILL find a way to react with any oxygen it can, for example. An element like fluorine WILL react with almost any element to form a molecular compound.
>>55309839
You didn't even address any points and think you can get away by pretending, or even perceiving, fallacies. Great job. How many internet arguments have you won?
>>55309577
Non logical
>If you see anything that goes against your belief
>Consider it a challenge you must overcome by dismissing it
Logical
>If you see anything that supports a belief
>Consider it a challenge you must overcome by accepting it
>>55309727
O children of men
>>55309607
Edgy.
>>55309472
Also, this picture here...
The spiral on the left is basically when your brain has a lot of serotonin, dopamine, and endorphins.
The spiral on the right is when you are deficient in serotonin, dopamine, and endorphins.
>>55309936
I don't see how. Believe in a God or don't, doesn't make a shit of difference to me.
>>55309879
Did you fail at english, you didn't have a point to address, or I would of stomped it out like the rest. You don't have a point to save your life.
You posts in this threads almost weekly and have the same shit to say.
If you had a good point and could stump me bring it. I was an atheist for almost 15 years so I've heard it all. (insert contrary opinion on life)
In your next post give me the hardest brain buster you can muster. Please.
Then give me the theorem of god
>>55309993
Then why did you posts? When you see a bierber thread do you say: "Bieber or no beiber don't mean shit to me!"
You know how to tell if something matters to someone? They comment on it. I know fucking crazy right.
>>55308409
Quantum physics says the universe must have a central observer of all things in order to exist. There's some evidence for you.
>>55310080
Perhaps you didn't notice the flag
>>55309637
Had me right up until the end and before I seen you /tv/ image. GJGE, 9/11.
>>55309172
>hurr durr my life sucks where is God
Christianity is the idea that life is a test.
>>55307169
Max Planck is widely recognized as the father of quantum physics.
I don't believe in the Semitic religions or god as we know it but it is hard to think there isn't some form of intelligent design out there.
>>55310157
No, I just try to not generalize groups. Someone needs to make a chrome app for 4 chin to just block Australian posts so this doesn't become a problem.
>>55307169
It's common for physicists to be disillusioned by their own findings so they turn to religion and other hulabaloo.
>>55307712
Rational speaker, making multiple valid points
>>55307815
Faggot in damage control
>>55309690
>You realize faith is believing something without proof?
So?
>So if you believe the opposite side of your argument is crazy for believing something without proof,
If you believe something without a solid foundation of proof, then yeah, you're crazy.
>what does that say about you arguing against something you by default view as a fairy tale?
It says that both sides establish a belief or lack of belief before evidence is provided.
>Are you beginning to see the fault of you logic.
No. Are you trying to suggest that a lack of belief requires faith? Because earlier you said that
>faith is believing something without proof
Are you also now saying that
>faith is believing or not believing something without proof
?
>Guys, I know ghosts don't exist that's why I need to write books I get paid for and seminars to remind people they don't exist.
There's good reasons to argue against believers of false ideas. These people may make uninformed decisions based on their beliefs.
>So ask yourself, if you believe someone is wrong,crazy, and full of bluster -- why do you engage them in such a way?
In what way? In an argumentative way?
1) It's a challenge.
2) We might change people's minds.
3) We might change our own minds.
>Don't you think that says a great deal about you and not about the other person.
Well I think anyone who engages in this discussion does it for similar reasons. The end goal is different. But I think the first 2 drives are the same. And the third is removed for many theists, I suspect.
>Unless you came here to help us of course.
Maybe. I think every individual has the innate drive to help others in some respect. Either on purpose or incidentally. Even crazy people.
>>55310300
i'd be pretty frazzled too, discovering shit that should not technically be, and likely won't be explained fully until you're dead.
i mean, i'm fedora as fuck, but some of the shit i've read has seriously made me question that stance. and i swear i've seen a some real /x/ shit.
Muslims and Christfags always start with trying to argue that God exists.
Lets say for examples sake we all agree God exists:
That does not lend credence to the argument that some pedo talked to an angel in the desert 1300 years ago, or that God impregnated a virgin.
>>55310223
From what I can tell, there's no necessity for intelligent design.
>>55310176
So you're literally saying that nothing could change your mind about the validity of Christianity?
>>55310666
>666
lol I'm Satan. Get scared. I'm hear to convince you that God isn't real so that you end up suffering.
Of course I'm doing God's work. He wants the weak of faith to suffer for all eternity lol
>>55308107
>So for instance they deny god, but will completely invalidate any investigation based on the fact they can't know
True, we should be arguing or killing each other over unfalsifiable shit
>>55307297
>atheism is a belief
You're just as much of a christfag
Agnosticism is the only logical position
>>55307169
>to retarded to understand
>to retarded
>to
>>55312241
agnosticism isnt a position at all, its like saying 'im human' when asked whats your gender. not knowing things(agnosticism) is default
>>55312241
>saying we can't know whether there is a flying spaghetti monster is the only logical position
>>55309076
But how did everything came to be? I am agnostic but I hate you fedora tippers thing you have all the answers, we are limited by our perceptions.
>>55307169
>to retarded to understand
>to retarded to
>to retarded
>to
wtf do you even grammar anon?
I think agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive
Atheism is a lack of belief, which rules out faith. One cannot simultaneously hold both views.
I think agnosticism however allows for faith. One can acknowledge that we don't and may never know what exists, and can choose any number of reasons to believe in based on faith.
Essentially agnosticism permits somebody to have an untestable hypothesis, while atheism rules out a possibility irrationally
>>55312494
The origin of the universe could be as stupid as some fucking alien's science fair project
>>55312438
It's not strictly not knowing things, it's acknowledgement that we do not and cannot know somdthing, and therefore cannot rule it out
See
>>55312682
>>55312682
You can be of the opinion that you can't know if God exists and still not have faith that he does. So no, not mutually exclusive.
>>55312241
Agnosticism is the BELIEF that you can't know if God exists.
>>55312809
>The origin of the universe could be as stupid as some fucking alien's science fair project
>Bobby Ayyy Lmao makes a universe for the science fair
>still loses to vinegar+baking soda volcano
>>55310666
>>55310802
Absolutely not. You misunderstood my argument entirely. Atheists often say that God can't be real because suffering exists, even though that doesn't even begin to tear away at the premise of Christianity because suffering is meant to bring out the true quality of our souls. If Earth was a utopia, it'd be Heaven.
>>55312813
Except atheism rules out god
It isnt simply lack of faith in god. It's lack of belief in god. Lack of belief necessarily rules out god just as assertion of belief rules out not-god
>>55312870
No, there is no assertion. It is a fact that we don't know now. It is a possibility that we may never know. Possibility is opposite what you said.
>>55312871
For all you know he could have shat out a universe and is the deity equivalent of an Indian
>>55309111
The anatomy of animals is terribly laid out and designed. Take the laryngeal nerve that branches off from the vagus nerve, wraps around the aorta and then heads back up to the larynx. In giraffe, the nerve goes all the way down the neck, turns around, and comes all the way back up the neck which makes it about 15 ft long. It is suggested that it is one of the reasons giraffes can only make a limited number of sounds.
A more reasonably designed giraffe wouldn't need 15 ft of nerve to connect to the larynx as that is extremely inefficient.
>all these people saying "Atheism isn't a religion"
I suppose it depends on the definition you're using, but consider this; if if it isn't a religion, it has most of the trappings of one. There is the absolute doctrine of "there is no God", there are fervent fedora-tipping zealots who go out of their way to convert people to atheist beliefs, there are patron saints (Dawkins, Sagan, etc.). What atheists fail to understand, in my experience, is that people are inclined to associate with systems of belief, be they ideological, spiritul, or otherwise. Like it or not, it seems that 'religion' of one kind or another, whether spiritual religions like Christianity or secular ones like atheism and egalitarianism, has always been and will always be a part of the human condition.
>>55312682
>Essentially agnosticism permits somebody to have an untestable hypothesis, while atheism rules out a possibility irrationally
No, it's completely rational on a pragmatic basis. Rather, there is no rational reason to hold onto a belief without any evidence whatsoever. Granted this is a justification from a so called "super-empirical" virtue. But we should be seeking to minimize the number of axioms in our belief system not extending them and ultimately a deity is the biggest possible assumption you can make.
And as other posters have pointed out you can be an atheist while accepting the fundamental underdetermination of all theories. You can still rationally make a choice of a particular theory and rule out others.
>>55313609
Long necked mammals were abandoned in alpha
:^)
>>55313786
Kek
>>55313717
It's a philosophical position.
Existentialism also meets all of the things you put forward, would you say that is a religion as well?
Religion is a fundamentally different concept and the people who treat philosophy or science as one are just as irrational.
>>55313754
>on a pragmatic basis
Pragmatism has nothing to do with rationality
Religion is not rational, but is incredibly pragmatic to practice as history has shown
All sorts of irrational fears are pragmatic
>there is no reason to hold onto a belief with no evidence
Which is why agnosticism does not purport to assert anything, it leaves open all available possibilities
>we need to minimize
Why
>you can rationally rule out others
You cannot rationally rule out a deity, there is almost nothing you could rationally rule out as the origin for this universe. Yet atheism rules out a deity.
Atheism is not "it is very unlikely for god to exist therefore I dont believe in it". atheism is "it is not possible for god to exist therefore I don't believe in it"
>>55309076
What are you even talking about? Shit breaks, yo.
Molecules will have a higher entropy than the atoms. The only reason things are held together is from the heat of reaction and activation energy. Didn't they blast it with electricity, too? "Oh neat, if you put energy in a system. Some if it is stored in bonds, and some goes to heat. Neato."
>>55313717
>There is the absolute doctrine of "there is no God"
Nope
> there are fervent fedora-tipping zealots who go out of their way to convert people to atheist beliefs,
Never met a single one
> there are fervent fedora-tipping zealots who go out of their way to convert people to atheist beliefs,
Nope
>What atheists fail to understand, in my experience, is that people are inclined to associate with systems of belief, be they ideological, spiritul, or otherwise
And what you fail to understand is what the word 'fallible' means and how it differs from 'infallible' belief systems like religion
>>55313717
>There is the absolute doctrine of "there is no God",
I won't even read further than this.
> you're all retarded
> matter of personal views and opinions based upon upbringing, culture impact, peers and self discoveries
> fucking stop now before one of you posts the actual right answer and the space time continuum unravels and everything as we know is obliterated
> stop because this post is trap and OP is jew dictator watching verbal hunger games with smug grin
> REPENT FROM OP BULLSHIT
>>55313717
>absolute doctrine of "there is no God"
It's not absolute, it's just that being atheist means lack of faith in god/s I mean if you believed that there is god you would be theist, you can be agnostic, but that's just saying that there is god, maybe, it's definition, same way god is definition too. For some it's all powerfull creator, which I dismiss outright, but word "God" could be used to describe a powerful entity (not all powerful mind you) and I can agree with such definition, apart that measuring "power" is subjective.
>>55308371
>and whatever philosophical idea you accept is entirely just an opinion.
And my opinion is that relativists should have a good dose of relative cultural enrichment.
>>55313121
>It is a fact that we don't know now.
No, that's your belief. Plenty of people are convinced that they know.
>>55314626
>talking up empiricism
>now mainstream religion is empirical
It is not rational to have an absolute belief in god today. This is even disregarding the bases for god in modern religions which are writing by fallible, and likely uncredible men. And even then those writings are not followed.
It is a fact that people have faith that God exists, it is not a fact that God exists, for anyone
Religion necessarily makes logical leaps based on faith, just like atheism does
>>55314945
>It is not rational to have an absolute belief in god today.
That's your belief.
>>55307396
Werner Heisenberg was one of the German scientists who stayed in Nazi Germany until the very end, even though all his Jew colleagues went to the USA.
>>55314107
>Pragmatism has nothing to do with rationality
Frankly a belief in a theory that has demonstrable consequences and "just werks" is more justified than the one has no direct consequences. I'm not advocating pragmatism as the end all be all of what one should believe but it can be used rationally to decide between theories.
>Why
I hear some pots banging in the middle of the night and immediately began thinking of reasons why.
Perhaps a burglar, or maybe a cat.
Without any evidence to the contrary perhaps it was a ghost.
Why stop there though? If it could've been one ghost why not two? Perhaps they were playing a game of sorts. Perhaps a whole ghost family is sitting in my kitchen playing in my cupboard.
If there is no reason to minimize our assumptions there is no penalty for making them and all of those scenarios are equally rational given the evidence.
Why choose relativity over an adjusted theory of the superluminous aether? I seek to justify my beliefs because I want to be rational. If there are more assumptions that are used for a particular belief it would seem to me that that particular belief is less justified than the one that requires less.
>Atheism is not "it is very unlikely for god to exist therefore I dont believe in it". atheism is "it is not possible for god to exist therefore I don't believe in it"
Except that's false and not what most people define atheism to be. You're arguing semantics.
>>55307771
When Sweden wrecks you then you know you've been fucked.
>>55307396
> Someone's family name including the term "Berg" must mean that they are Jewish
This is how retarded pol can be at times..
>>55308870
Cause and Effect, how was God created?
>>55314998
It is not rational, ultimately your absolute belief comes down to having "faith" in it being true and rejecting all other possibilities.
How can a belief possibly be rational if it has no criteria in which it can be disproven?
>>55315228
Can agnosticism be disproven?
"i have drunk all of the science ever :DD"
t. heisenberg
>>55307482
Do they need help building mosques? I have some friends that can do it for cheap m8.
>>55315292
That doesn't even make sense in this context. I don't know if it can or can't that's some epistemological debate I'm not very educated in.
Can logic be proven or disproven?
We can't justify the belief of axioms so creating more is probably not the way to go if we want to be rational. If your theory has no conditions in which it can be disproven it's more or less an axiom in your belief system.
For that matter it's no different than Marxism, or critical theory. You can justify holding onto the belief under any evidence to the contrary.
>real communism hasn't been tried
>your privilege is blinding you from the truth
>god is a metaphysical entity outside the universe
same shit
>>55315702
So, no. Your dogma can't be disproven. What a true believer you are.
>>55315292
There is no assertion to be disproven
It can be rendered moot by discovery of the origin of the universe
If it helps, here's an analogy:
A Republican is running for president
A republican believes this candidate is good, but cannot prove it beyond faith
A Democrat asserts they know the candidate is shit, but cannot prove it beyond faith
A neutral party maintains the position that the candidate could be any range from shit, to good, to unforeseen possibilities
The Republican (theist) and Democrat (athiest) can both be disproven (in theory absent political opinion) by discovery of the candidates aptitude, by any number of means
The neutral party cannot be proven or disproven because an assertion was never made in the first place. However, the neutral party could also be partial to a particular belief, without asserting it. Something like, "I think this candidate will be good based on x, but it's completely possible he will be utter shit"
>>55313717
I haven't read a single work by new atheists like Dawkins. I became an atheist from my studies as a Christian. Study and faith lead me to atheism because I couldn't rationalize my faith in the face of knowledge.
There is no absolute "doctrine". I can't prove there is no God so that isn't my stance. My stance is that anything is possible but I won't believe it unless it's proven true.
Having debates and discussions with the religious doesn't make be a zealot. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I am "converting" you.
>>55316004
>I couldn't rationalize my faith
Same, felt like religion is lying to yourself. Which I can understand.
>>55315957
>There is no assertion to be disproven
What do you think agnosticism is?
>>55315878
I said it doesn't make sense in the context of what we were talking about. You ignored this and everything else I wrote to put the point across that you were fishing for. You just want to be a smug sack of shit and have no real interest in this.
Agnosticism isn't dogma it isn't necessarily true, I said I don't know if it can one way or the other because that -is- what the entire field of epistemology attempts to address.
The question of if it can be proven or disproven literally relies on the answer to itself. You posed an impossible tautology. Go fuck yourself.
>>55316108
Eventually, the words in the Bible that once had meaning just fell away like paint remover on a wall.
When you start believing, you slowly generate this portrait of the belief in your head but eventually you realize that it was just a fascade.
I can only rationalize religious belief to older generations (65+), highly religious areas, severely depressed, drug addicts, ex convicts trying to start life over. It's a decent crutch for people so I don't mind believers.
I only really mind the believers that are otherwise intelligent and educated with a happy life because there really is no good excuse. it's like seeing someone waste their life.
>>55316196
I've put forth my definition more than several times
The lack of an assertion as to the origin of the universe.
If you want it could be: the lack of assertion with regard to any unknown, the allowance of any hypothesis
>>55316196
>>55316476
>What do you think agnosticism is?
It the position that the truth of metaphysical claims are unknowable.
>>55316550
reminder to the magical agnostics ITT:
If you lack belief in God/s, you are an atheist. I am sorry if you "don't like labels" but that is just how it is.
Everything else about the origin of the universe has nothing to do with atheism, so you really should correct your misunderstanding that you've developed in your mind.
>>55316550
>that they are unknowable
No, there is a possibility the truth is knowable
again, for all we know a deity in the form of a shitting Indian will come down and explain how he came into being and that we're a form of excrement he did not properly dispose of
We weren't capable of comprehending how babby is formed at one point, i think it's safe to say our horizons could be expanded such that we can discover the origin
>>55316751
anything can happen but we wont know unless we know
>>55316736
Your definition of atheism reads like a reactionary disproof of religion
The jump to the origin of the universe is just a logical conclusion based on the assumption that our current knowledge is good enough to prove everything short of that.
Agnosticism fully allows for purposes other than the universe. For instance, dark matter could just be shit on a metaphysical beach plane for the pajeet deity I've been referencing
>>55316819
If you're trying to imply that is a ridiculous assertion you didn't do a very good job
It's literally the premise by which science operates under
>>55316751
That is literally the textbook definition of agnosticism m8.
The question of whether we can know the truth of something metaphysical and inherently unobservant is incredibly poignant.
If your answer to this is yes we can know these things you are most likely some kind of scientific realist and not strictly agnostic.
>>55316977
You've created a different definition of agnosticism so you can separate yourself from atheism. It isn't some third position. Atheism means "a disbelief in the existence of deity".
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
You can be an agnostic atheist or an gnostic atheist. They are not mutually exclusive in fact they really have nothing to do with each other.
>>55307169
>not being agnostic deist master race
>>55317312
Heisenberg was a deist, noone was talking about what belief system
>>55307169
Hesienberg was red pilled
>>55317273
I've said several rims that I don't agree with the textbook definition because it purports to include too much.
>inherently unobservant
Something I never claimed, you are saying it's inherently unobservant
>you've created a third position so you can seperate yourself from atheism
No, I don't think atheism allows for the possibility of a God to exist
Is it becoming apparent to anyone else that "agnostics" are way more retarded and immune to logic than even the most fervent theist?
>>55318172
It's apparent to me that atheists demand people conform just like mudslimes
>>55318659
What's wrong with demanding people conform to the actual definitions of words they insist on using instead of making up subjective new ones they pulled from their ass and just happen to suit them at the time? The reason language works in the first place is because of common understanding.
>>55318781
Nothing I said was subjective
I made an objective definition based on assertions
>>55318872
You're arguing based on your subjective definition that you made up of a word that already has an objective defitintion.
Unless your definition is published in a dictionary it can by no stretch of the imagination be called objective.
>>55318989
Perhaps you should use said dictionary to figure out what objective means
(It has nothing to do with who accepts it)
>>55307169
Sounds like the redpilled pantheistic view of the world.
>>55307169
> to
stopped reading there
>>55310118
No man, it does not. Make sure you understand the implications of quantum physics before making such claims.
>>55307330
Agnostics say "we can't know", right ?
But the consciousness can know, so you deny its existence.
Therefore no difference with Atheism you full mongoloid.
>>55316977
Atheism doesn't imply absolutely anything you think it does so you are mistaken.
It isn't "my definition". It's the definition based on Oxford.
>>55307169
>to retarded
I have a question for atheist. How can you believe with 100% certainty that there is no God when there is no proof that he does not exist? That doesn't seem like a very logical, open minded and scientific way to view the world. It seems more like your beliefs are being dictated by your emotions and not on facts.
>>55319829
this is bait
>>55307330
>agnostic
>based
This is you.
>>55307169
The guy in the pic probably just got old and, due to fear of death, turned to religion again. Funny how people find religion when dying or in jail eh?
>>55319442
>>55319753
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2012/nov/09/confessions-of-an-internet-troll
LOL
>>55310118
Wow, you know nothing. Not even Heisenberg thought that, why would you think that?
>>55319951
Then tell me how did you open the box? I am waiting....
>>55319951
>agnostic logic:
"I am a magical being living between belief and no belief but I swear I am not an atheist! Stop forcing labels on me! Atheists believe in 'blah blah blah blah' and no amount of definitions will prove to me otherwise. The only truly important thing to realize is that I found a way to feel superior to everyone."
>>55319951
That is one of the most retarded comparisons i've ever seen.
>>55319829
How can you not believe in Chad the atomic cosmic wakongu where there is no proof he does not exist
>>55320109
science
>>55320153
>>55320153
stay mad monkey
>>55320172
epic
>>55319708
Who said anything about implications?
A disbelief in god necessarily excludes faith based beliefs of unknowns (not assertions). I personally believe the universe has always been and there is no origin, but this is a faith based belief that does not exclude a belief that a god could exist instead.
Atheism would not allow for that, as it rules a god out.
>>55320135
>Hurr durr I don't know what a distinction is
Neither do muslims, everything is halal or haram
>>55310118
Nice
>>55320370
>Atheism would not allow for that, as it rules a god out.
No it doesn't.
>>55320370
a lack of belief in god doesn't imply absolute squat other than lack of belief in god/s.
Atheism doesn't rule God out.
i'm an agnostic atheist and I haven't ruled God out. I just think there hasn't been good reasons to believe.
>>55320418
What are you even talking about? Speak english.
>>55320454
>>55320474
>atheist= lack if belief in a god
>but a god can exist, and therefore it could be possible to believe in it
Sorry how are these not mutually exclusive?
Or does atheism turn off when a god is discovered?
>>55320631
just because it can be possible to believe in something doesn't mean you do
Holy shit are you having a mental breakdown? You're not even coherent right now.
>>55320631
what the fuck?
>>55307169
God is a genius. and not a dumbass as holy books portray.
pic related.
>>55320742
You're completely retarded, that isn't what I asserted.
Theoretically god is discovered. Is it not impossible to remain an atheist?
>It is impossible
Therefore atheism cannot contain within it the possibility that God is real.
Therefore atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive
>>55321003
It isn't impossible. Why the fuck would you say that?
>>55321003
what the fuck? seriously. I would give you a response if you made some sense.
>>55307396
desu this. disgusting kike religion
>calling yourself white
>beliving in shitskin poor people religion
>>55321121
You idiots keep repeating that atheism allows for the existence of a god, tethering it to belief rather than existance
>your definition:
Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of a deity
------------------------------------------------
*Let's say a deity does exist.*
How can one still be an atheist if it is discovered that a deity exists?
It is not possible to continue to disbelieve in something that you yourself find out for a fact.
To repeat:
*A Deity does exist, you yourself find out it exists
Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of a deity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Because it is not possible for these two things to coexist, they are mutually exclusive and your claim is false.
>>55321561
why are agnostics so stupid?
>>55321561
Some people will adapt their beliefs to new information. Some won't. Are you seriously this fucking retarded?
>>55307169
>that quote
>athiest
>>55321739
>will adapt their beliefs
As in, atheism is not compatible with the possibility of a god existing. Atheism is not intact anymore in that instance. How then is your earlier claim that it is compatible with a god existing possible?
This is why I distinguish agnosticism, precisely because atheism changes on this challenge
>christians believe in the Christian god
>turns out we discover for a fact (somehow) that nothingness turned into the universe
>christians change belief
>christianity is still intact
This is what you are positing.
It sounds stupid because atheism is just as stupid as theism
>>55322043
First of all, atheism is compatible with the possibility of God existing.
Atheism doesn't change. The beliefs of an individual may or may not change. You honestly can't even distinguish an abstract concept from the actual mind that considers that concept. This is a level of stupidity that is truly mind blowing.
>>55322043
atheists are fully capable of changing their views if God were proven.
you've built up all these rules in your head that doesn't exist.
>>55322296
you either believe a god/s exist or you don't. There is no special balancing act on a pin of a needle between belief and no belief.
If you don't believe in god/s then congratulations, you are no longer a special snowflake.
why do we continue to have to have these pointless discussions with agnostics?
>If God exists, then how come science? :^)
Literally every atheist "argument" ever.
>asking for physical evidence of the metaphysical
>>55322257
>first of all I'll just assert this thing that you just spent 3 posts disproving as a given
>can't distinguish from an abstract concept
You haven't shown how those two statements are compatible. They aren't
>the beliefs of the individual can change
And that doesn't make the beliefs you changed from wrong? Even when they are disproven?
Somehow if God exists, disbelieving in god not being possible anymore is not considered disproven?
>>55322296
>your previous view is not possible anymore, so you change it, somehow it wasn't disproven
Lol
>atheists are fully capable of changing their beliefs
they arent, as evidenced by this exchange
They can't even admit that if God is proven real, it means disbelieving in it was wrong
They can't even contest points made in opposition, they just act like nothing happened, like feminists or christfags
>>55320291
BTFO
T
F
O
>>55322888
If God were proven, I would be a believer. It would be delusional otherwise. Since I don't see any good reason to believe, I am an agnostic atheist. Sometimes I think God could possibly exist and other times it seems highly unlikely.
It would be nice if an eternally unconditional parental figure in the ether existed but I have no reason to believe it.
>>55322888
You're not even arguing the same thinng anymore. I doubt you even realize it because you're dumber than a sack of shit, but it's natural when you've lost an argument to try to change the subject I suppose. Atheism being wrong if God is proven has nothing to do with whether it's incompatible with the possibility of existence of God, which you never disproved, simply asserted over and over again. If God is proven, continuing to be atheist would be wrong, (not impossible, look up apologetics you dumb faggot) but it wouldn't make being an atheist while there was an absence of proof wrong.
>>55323173
>If God were proven
> I need physical proof of God
> I need to define exactly what kind of proof I need
See >>55322804
>>55323173
>It would be delusional
Do you know what that "it" is in that statement?
"It" is atheism
Atheism is not compatible with the possibility for the existence of a god
I lean toward god not existing, and lean more every day.
>>55323472
>apologetics
I was using impossible and wrong synonymous
As in, it would be impossible to continue to be considered rational
Every belief is technically possible despite being wrong. You can believe the sun revolves around the earth right now if you wanted to.
>when I lost the argument
Sure thing champ, you're the one not addressing my points. And you're the one asserting the same thing over and over. I'm the only person here trying to rewrite it more and more simply for you.
>change the subject
Lol
>it wouldn't make being an atheist when there is no proof wrong
The belief isn't strictly wrong because God not being real is a still a possibility, just as theism is still possible
But"atheism is compatible with the existence of god" is wrong precisely because it fails when existence of God is proven
>>55323477
anything would be good
anything at all
we accept tectonic plates because it can be shown.
>>55323488
i am not going over this again
>>55323477
theists can hardly define God in the first place so we can't even go from there
Misquoting people who matters (mattered) to strengthen your twisted and for a long time obsolete world fantasy. He most probably wasn't referring to Judeo-Christian God, but who cares! Scientists said "God"! Fuck logic, obey! No matter how many times you repeat this shit, you're still being hilarious. Your stupidity never ceases to bore me.
>>55324319
>In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.
He was a diehard lutheran to the end, mang.
>>55324319
they like using albert einstein as well
it's funny because Einstein thinks religious believers are retarded. At the very most he believed in a spinoza "god" far, far, far different than the abrahamic god.
>God is not real
Prove it fedora tipper
>God is real
Prove it Christfag
>doesn't list why
>feels
A theist till the end
>>55324319
Fine. Is this your proof that Jedu-Christian God is real?
>>55324683
meant for
>>55324484
>>55324570
>god is unproven
*chills with sunglasses*
>>55315113
It's an American thing I guess. Jews are the only German settlers that didn't take (by force, pressure or choice) an Anglicized name.
>>55308156
>swede in humongous assragery posting gypsies
Daily reminder that the irreligiosity of Sweden will vanish as islam will be on the rise
>>55308932
Einstein stated that quantum physics aren't even real. What an einstein.
>>55307815
literally proved his point
