Hey shouldn't all atheists be agnostic instead? Shouldn't all religious people doubt the divinity of their holy book like it's the only one that could be right?
I'm confused how people logic when we clearly couldn't truly know if there is or is not a God and what code to live by. Checkmate atheists and Religionfags. I'll bet you didn't see that one coming.
atheism is a political model and position so they won't admit that
We really need a containment board for all this shitposting. I get sick of seeing 50 threads a day about this retarded shit.
>>55389843
>Should
Why?
It is all about risk reward
Se pascal's wager
>>55389843
1 or 7 is equally retarded
>>55389843
Look up "epignosis". I got it, you need it.
>>55389971
We can be even less sure God punishes anyone.
>>55389843
Usually there's a surge in atheist vs. religion topics whenever there's an political issue that liberals are unable to push following an emergent form. It's like a rip tide phenomena, very strange.
>>55390109
I dunno I think I read too much of the new testament as it is. I got to the part where Jesus dies.
>>55390117
But what is the reward for being agnostic?
What is the punishment for not being one?
>>55390224
The punishment is literally you can't effectively logic. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God.
>>55389843
The debate about god comes down to definition. Some people worship the earth, should I then admit that the earth is divine?
>>55390310
You can stick a Popsicle stick up your ass. Do whatever you want then I just think your wrong though. I don't find anything to be divine it is simply mundane interpreted as divine.
>>55389843
God is a square circle.
Have a nice day people.
>>55390283
>The punishment is literally you can't effectively logic.
that is not punishment
>scientific logic
>is there any proof of god
>no
>then gtfo
>>55390448
Is there proof god DOESN'T exist?
>>55390410
Sure it is if you value intelligence.
>>55389843
has it ever occurred to you that one may consider himself an atheist because he believe improbable and/or implausible that there is a God?
for example, one might consider the vast number of religions available, in different times and societies, to be an explanation of why no God actually exists, but might be only a "child's answer" to (then) explainable acts (some believed the fire was a divinity too in the very early days).
>Hey shouldn't all atheists be agnostic instead?
Let me repeat this again because you imbeciles keep parroting this nonsense:
AGNOSTICISM ISN'T A MIDDLE-MAN/MUTUALLY-EXCLUSIVE.
Stop fucking thinking it is.
Level-headed Atheists tend to be AGNOSTIC ATHEISTS. That's right: they're Agnostic AND Atheist! *GASP*
>>55390504
>Sure it is if you value intelligence.
Why?
>>55390410
Let's say for a second another religion trhan the one you picked is right. Are you still going to be punished anyway?
>>55390595
That is still not a scenario where atheists and agnostics are right
>>55390580
Because logic is inherent to intelligence. The ability to logic is a good measure of intelligence.
>>55389952
umad fag?
>>55389843
Careful OP
That straw-man is so old and dry it might catch fire
>>55390650
There are still no scenarios where you could be right too.
>>55390679
How is agnosticism correct logic?
How is it illogical to do something if there is no downside?
>>55390728
So now you are claiming the existence of God is an impossibility?
>>55390749
The downside is your dubious idea of logic and yes according to logic we have not proven or dis proven God. So agnostic is logical.
>>55389843
>Shouldn't all religious people doubt the divinity of their holy book like it's the only one that could be right?
That's why it's called a divine revelation, faggot. When will you understand that epistemology was invented by Christians for Christians. The only atheist who knows what he's talking about is one who says 'I have no faith in God.', because that's a statement of self-reflection. Any atheist who even thinks about 'scientific proof' is a gigantic piece of uneducated trash.
>>55390781
No I simply said another religion could be right and you go to hell anyway. That was my point. When you say God I seem to think Allah, God and Yahweh. Those are just different names for what is interpreted as the one true God.
>>55389979
The irony is that religious people are all 7's when it comes to every other god, where atheists are 6's to those gods
>>55390869
The claim of existence is a claim about "scientific proof"
>>55390501
Burden of proof is on the claimant. End of discussion.
>>55391003
>Claiming god doesn't exist, isn't a claim
>>55390927
No you said there is no scenarios where I could be correct
That means the scenarios of Christian God being true is not possible
>>55390827
>So agnostic is logical.
It is only logical if it is what gets you to your end goal
Religion is only illogical if it doesn't get you there
Agnosticism is not a position of belief in a deity, but in the nature of reality. You can be an agnostic theist, and you can be an agnostic atheist. All that agnosticism means is that you believe the existence of a higher power is either currently or inherently unknowable.
Stop being retarded.
>>55390869
you make some good points
Just a reminder this happened where a Christian annihilates an atheist completely in a debate using logic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPs73RBAFGM
>>55391075
so you believe in unicorns and fairies too?
because that is what ignoring the burden of proof does
>>55389843
youre a retard who doesnt know what agnostic and atheism means
>>55388061
>>55375331
all this garbage has nothing to do with politics, why is it still up
>>55391277
>eric hovind
>destroying anyone
>>55391323
>because that is what ignoring the burden of proof does
No it doesnt
It just mean I cannot say that I can prove 100% that they exist
It doesnt mean I have to believe in them
>>55391096
Any other religion than the one you follow is correct that was the hypothetical scenario. I didn't mean to imply you couldn't be right.
Fine if it helps you towards an end goal go ahead. Just don't expect people to believe your crap. Especially genesis.
>>55389843
which is why scientists everywhere run around saying WE JUST DONT KNOW to every imagineable fantasy you can come up with
>are there unicorns made of magic buried under the polar ice caps?
WE JUST DONT KNOW
>>55391277
I seriously hope you're joking, that is the single best video I've ever seen against religious thought.
Hovind couldn't even comprehend what Thunderdoof was saying after having it explained to him like 8 times.
>>55391452
That isn't dis proven it's simply very improbable.
>>55389843
>Hey shouldn't all atheists be agnostic instead?
The vast majority are, Agnostic isn't a lack of religious belief, it is literally just saying you do not know. Put simply if you are an Atheist you are an Agnostic Atheist (I don't know if God exists so I will assume he doesn't), a Gnostic Atheist (I know for a fact that God doesn't exist), or an Apatheist (I don't care if God exists). You could be an Agnostic Theist.
Can you fucking stop this shit already? EVERY HUMAN IS EITHER AN ATHEIST OR A THEIST. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist but just being an agnostic is not an option. Jesus Christ why does this need to be explained every day
>>55391452
They dont need to say that
They can just stick with
>there is no evidence to support that hypothesis
Lets all believe in unicorns, dragons and ghosts!!! OmFg...
>>55391546
Do you know how I know your wrong? I am one.
>>55391546
I have no opinion on the existence of God I can only say it is neither proven nor dis proven.
>>55391323
Those very well could exist in an alternate universe or in space somewhere
They don't exist on earth in our current plane ad far as we know or something along those lines
Where atheism will definitively conclude things don't exist without evidence, and theists conclude things do exist without evidence, agnostics remain logically conservative and don't rule anything out per se
>inb4 agnostics can be atheists trash from yesterday
>>55390992
>the claim of a priori knowledge is a claim of a posteriori judgement
That's why nobody takes atheists serious.
>>55389843
Agnostic is the same mindset of a literal retard
Do apples grow on trees?
Theist-[insert deity here] wills it obviously
Atheist-Yes because fruits are parts of a plant particularly the angiosperms
Agnostic-We dont know that!
Religious people are semi retarded they have enough logic in them to find simple explanations for everyday life but complex non magical solutions baffle their brains
Religion is nothing more than humans using MUH FEELINGs to explain reality.
>>55391530
and? All atheists just say magic gods are incredibly improbable and assume they don't exist until proven otherwise.
>>55391656
If you have no opinion then you don't believe in god. Congrats, you're an atheist.
>>55391546
>this doesn't need to be explained every day
And I'd like to stop examining why it's wrong every day
Atheist=lack of belief in god
If God is later determined to exist, atheism fails. Therefore atheism is an assertion that God doesn't exist
It follows that a third position is possible, the colloquial and I would argue true definition of agnosticism
The pic already debunks it's own message. "We don't know it yet" means we can't support the believe in god, as there is no proof (yet).
>>55391767
Yes to assume something is dis proven simply because it isn't proven is idiocy. You don't believe in UFOs being alien spacecraft do you? All evidence seems to point to the fact those are piloted craft. The way they move, the speeds they go.
>>55391841
I did not say I didn't believe in God. I said he was neither proven or disproven there is a difference you know.
>>55391916
One can hold an unproven and unsupported belief and remain rational despite no definitive proof either way
One can believe that we will discover aliens without concluding that we will discover aliens.
>>55391950
You can either believe or not believe. If you say you're not sure then you don't believe and that makes you an agnostic atheist.
>>55390930
Do you have a formal proof for your "all" statement?
>>55390397
That's my point, though. In ancient time the forces of nature was seen as gods, or the acts of gods.
>>55391757
Your an idiot there is hard science on this and the processes related to the tree. It's like saying I don't believe in science which I do more than you, you fucking idiot.
>>55392065
I have no opinion I am unsure of the existence of God I am a true agnostic.
>>55392137
So what's your point? Do these forces have to be viewed as acts of Gods?
>>55392255
Retarded is what you are. There is no third option. Agnosticism is not equal to atheism and theism, you can't use it that way.
>>55389952
/aus/
>>55390203
Go just a wee bit further.
>>55392255
When you say "God", what exactly are you talking about? Are you using the term specifically to describe the abrahamic God, or in a more generalistic "god-like entity" kind of fashion?
>>55392477
You can say you don't know. I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God.
>>55389843
science and religion are both trying to explain the same thing
they are compatible
>>55392303
No. We've found natural explanations for them, but some people will see the divine in any action because they wanna believe in something greater. They're are wrong for doing so.
In every debate about the existence of god the participants should start by defining what the definition of god is. If they mean the a literal god described in some holy text, there's a very strong case to be made that he/she/it doesn't exist. But if they mean some part of the natural order then it can be contested that it is not divine, but its existence is apparent.
>>55392565
God : entity you created the earth.
>>55392675
who rather
>>55392591
That makes you am agnostic atheist: someone who doesn't believe in God but doesn't claim to know one doesn't exist. Most atheists are agnostic.
>>55392055
Sure, that's "believing", which has nothing to do with science. Religious people are free to believe, but when they claim how "dumb" atheists are, because they "ignore the proof" (Bible...) then we have to show them their place.
Just because science can't yet answer certain questions about the origins of the universe doesn't mean the magic kike on a stick hypothesis is still on the table.
>>55392719
I can neither say one exists or does not exist. Are you really this retarded?
>>55392731
People who looked for a code in our genes didn't believe they would find one?
>>55391323
No i don't. But I don't try and imply that I am 100% certain they doesn't exist and demand you to prove otherwise
>>55392807
Science is always wrong.
Always.
The lie that it's closing in on the truth is also wrong.
Bible: always right.
Science: always wrong.
>>55392808
But you don't believe in a god. That's the definition of an atheist.
>>55392807
Actually that is exactly what it means
>>55392731
Your proof is flimsy at best if you use a bible.
>I've never heard of the null hypothesis
OP and everyone who agrees with him.
>>55392912
Then why do we have this word agnostic?
You really are this retarded. Atheists deny the existence of God.
>>55389843
Yeah. Agnosticism makes the most sense.
>>55392846
Believing you will find something is the basis of all science. Claiming it's there before actually finding something is religion.
>>55392808
Are you twelve? Do you believe in god? If the answer is anything other than 'yes' then you are an atheist. Please study what agnosticism actually means. It's not a term equal to atheism and theism, you can only use it with either one of those terms. Good night.
>>55393068
Atheists deny the existence of God! You fucking moron.
>>55393007
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. That makes you an atheist, doesn't it? Agnostic is a position on knowledge, while atheism is a stance on the existence of god.
>>55393068
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
that's the definition you retard.
>>55392157
see
>>55391386
>youre a retard who doesnt know what agnostic and atheism means
>>55393172
I neither believe nor disbelieve God exists!
>>55393172
I have no proof for or against the existence of God. So I have no opinion I just look at facts. Like people should do!
Atheism is pretty much a religion.
The only difference is that they have fate that nothing exists
>>55393233
Do you lack belief in deities?
>>55393377
I can neither believe nor disbelieve I have seen no evidence either way to form an opinion.
>>55392697
Would said entity have to be an individual in order to be worthy of being defined a god?
Also, about the "atheist vs agnostic" discourse, aren't the two entwined in a way, since belief and knowledge are separated? For instance, i could say that i believe that aliens exist somewhere in the universe, but i don't know it for a fact, and i'd reckon you don't know it either. When i ask you if you believe in aliens, i'm not asking what you know - since we don't have facts yet, strong claims are very obviously out of question.
"Strong atheism" (i.e. i'm 100% certain that there is no god) is an extremely rare position to have
>>55393316
Define what you mean by god, please.
1. The creator of the universe.
2. Highly powerful beings.
3.Humans ascending to another plane of existence.
4. other.
Define god and it will be easier to test the idea against reality.
>>55393495
Any of those except number 3. I use the broadest definition in the world.
>>55393442
Yes, you've said this before, but it's a completely incoherent statement. You're claiming that you are both, X and X's negation at the same time.
>>55393117
No it isn't you idiot. It's the lack of belief in god. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists and don't claim to know that God doesn't exist.
>>55393481
I could say based on the fact we have unexplained very fast moving objects that are seen on a daily basis that happen to move much like a spaceship would that aliens exist.
>>55393608
>>55393623
Schrodinger's cat.
>>55389843
oh your an agnostic? so you give credit to Scientology as a possibility, because it can't be proven wrong or right?
So you're a coward is what you're trying to say. Take a stance, one way or the other. Given our current scientific knowledge or the universe and the certainty that we will gain more knowledge in the near future, there are less and less unknowns.
Either you find god in the gaps of knowledge, in which case your god is a shrinking god, or you rationalize that it is most likely that there are no gods. Agnosticism is for faggots.
>>55393557
So if I say I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god of any human religion, but I can entertain the idea that there is something out there people would call divine, be it aliens for example, that makes me wrong to call myself an atheist?
>>55393794
Are you religious?
>>55393769
Then prove what happened in ancient history possibly millions of years ago.
>>55393794
Because you truly claim to be right about something you have no proof for or against.
>>55389952
You need to go outside. I only use this site whilst shitting
>>55393838
Not at all. But it's not like I can say with 100% certainty that there isn't things out there that some people would categorize as deities. I think there's a high possibility for alien life, if they are more advanced than we are then people would worship them as gods, although I wouldn't see them as that.
>>55393757
That has absolutely nothing to do with my post.
I'm beginning to get the feeling you're not really equipped for this kind of discussion. Your "agnosticism" strikes me as nothing more than a (willful?) misinterpretation of terms and an endless and equally worthless juggling of semantics.
To settle this nonsense: Do you have a *positive belief* in a god? The answer is evidently "No", judging from your previous comments, and regardless of your personal degree of *certainty* regarding the (non)existence of deities, you are, by definition, *not* a theist. You are without positive belief. You are, in fact, an atheist.
>>55394182
Schrodinger's cat : I have put the cat inside a box and placed a vial of poison that will be released at a random time. I can neither claim the cat is alive or dead because it's inside a box.
>>55393757
I'm gonna explain it one last time do that even a legitimate retard would understand.
Theist: someone who believes in god
Agnostic theist: someone who believes in god but doesn't claim to know for sure one exists
Atheist: someone who doesn't believe in God
Agnostic atheist: someone who doesn't believe in God but doesn't claim to know for sure one doesn't exist
Those are your options. You keep calling yourself an agnostic when that is not an option. It's not some kind of middle ground like you think it is. Every single person is either a theist or an atheist.
>>55393915
Religions are made all the time when cults become big enough. They each preach the same shit; a form of divine salvation. Should I believe in any of these claims more than older religions?
WHERE WERE YOU WHEN /POL/ GOT COMPLETELY BTFO!!!
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/11/economists-surprising-prediction-about-climate-change-less-sex-and-fewer-babies/
"Three researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research have published a working paper showing how increasing temperatures over the next century could mean fewer babies born — because, to paraphrase Cole Porter, it will be too darn hot. "
SO /POL/, WHAT'S IT GONNA BE?
ADMIT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND CAUSED BY MANS GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS OR LET THE WHITE RACE DIE OUT DUE TO A LACK OF BREEDING?
>>55394322
The God neither exists nor doesn't exist. That's what I mean by Schrodinger's cat.
>>55394322
Listen to this dude. I'm personally an Agnostic atheist and from what I've seen OP is too. He just doesn't want to be labeled an atheist for some reason.
>>55393044
And that is in line with my post
>>55392055
Claiming to know aliens exist is not what I said
And a hypothesis is a simulation of testing a belief, it is scientific
>>55389843
Burden of proof lies on claimant.
God remains a bare assertion so can be logically dismissed as fallacy.
The end.
>>55394421
...I give up. Bye.
>>55394421
Are you also a agnostic on the subject of unicorns, fairies and trolls? According to you it would be illogical to take a stance on something for which you have no "evidence" either for or against.
I was expecting an American to be op. Oh well.
>>55394636
That is true. Saying they could exist doesn't make you a retard. Knowing they exist despite lack of proof does.
what do you call people who don't really care either way, is that agnostic?
>>55393769
>if you say you cannot assert something with absolute truth you are are coward
>less and less gaps in knowledge
And?
>god is a shrinking god
Unless a god is the Genesis
Regardless, a god can just be some fucking ayy lmao that jizzed in earth's ocean for bantz
Don't confuse your hatred of religion with what were talking about
That's why having a religion is called f a i t h
>>55394745
I don't think so
If you absolutely don't care you wouldn't hold a position or belief in the first place
I don't know if there's a term for that
>>55394421
Oh god this has got to be the worst misuse of quantum physics i've ever seen.
>>55394690
So you're telling me that fairies exists. As in an actually small humanoid person with wings that possess magical abilities.Instead of accepting that it's a creature made up in the minds of storytellers and writers? If I made up a creature called Skyggebarn, a shadow given life by cutting it off from it's owner, then you wouldn't neither believe nor disbelieve in that creature?
>>55394577
Given the laws of nature and the complexity that has arisen from what many claim is a spontaneous occurrence (organic life, evolution), it's not stupid to assume there is design involved.
Everything in common sense points to that assumption when you look at things around you.
>>55394939
While that is improbable. I don't see your evidence against the existence of such creatures. They don't have to exist on earth to be real. Have you visited every planet in the universe idiot?
>>55389979
5 master race assemble.
>>55390448
>>55391323
that's just stupid m8, you obviously can't into maths/physics and you should probably stop posting.
In order to dismiss anything completely scientifically, you need to prove it doesn't exist.
Also you should reread the sticky before using it, you clearly have no idea what burden of proof means.
>>55395069
But a shadow can't separate from its owner. That's goes against every rule of reality. Can you not see that it is illogical to assume such a being exist?
>>55394939
It's funny how much you people confuse belief, fact, and knowledge of
Entertaining a possibility is not asserting it exists
It's more of a spectrum of likelihood
Your absurd example and fairies would be on the almost certainly does not exist end. Fairies seem more likely though in my opinion
>>55395211
I was talking more about the fairies and unicorns really.
>>55395211
At least with that you can dis prove it's existence.
>>55390283
>You can't prove or disprove the existence of God.
How do you know that?
>>55395216
>Your absurd example and fairies would be on the almost certainly does not exist end.
>Fairies seem more likely though in my opinion
>>55395300
Because in 6000 years of history a God has neither been truly proven or dis proven.
>>55389979
What if i define god as this banana sitting next to me? Does this banana not exist? Surely the difference in belief should be mainly differences of definitions of god.
>>55389843
Not really. It's fairly easy to be 100% certain a character isn't real. It's more the concept of a universal creator that's still undecided.
>this is how christfags think
No wonder you believe in fairy tales.
>>55395294
So there are things you can disprove in your mind. Great, progress.
>>55394282
>I can neither claim the cat is alive or dead because it's inside a box.
Which is in absolutely no way analogous to the question of whether or not you *believe* in a god. The Schrödinger thought experiment is about the person outside the box not being able to profess *knowledge* regarding the state of the cat. It doesn't say shit about the person's state of belief.
It's a bad analogy either way because the entire point of the experiment is to illustrate (and ridicule) the concept of superposition, a concept that (in the thought experiment) actually *does* lead to the absurdity of a thing having two mutually exclusive properties at the same time. My criticism of your incoherent statement was precisely this absurdity, the absurdity of you claiming to be two mutually exclusive things at the same time, and what do you do? You respond with a reference to a thought experiment that's meant to mock this exact circumstance. Brilliant.
Anyway, since you ignored the rest of my post completely and only responded to the one part that enabled you to keep this thread going, I'll fuck off now and leave you to your little brainless shit show.
>>55395496
I do and do not believe in the existence of God.
>>55394993
Why would the occurrence of life indicate design. Complexity have been to to arise naturally.
>>55395617
>Complexity have been to to arise naturally.
You sound retarded, but i'm gonna have to ask you for a source on that claim.
>>55395733
You ask for a source on a claim that doesn't need one? Talk about retarded.
>>55395861
Doesn't need one? What kind of an assertion is that? Are you 12?
>>55395599
That's not possible. Like a married bachelor or a square triangle isn't possible. You are not a special snowflake. You are just fucking retarded.
>>55395917
It's a pretty fucking standard assertion. Complexity arises naturally all the time. Don't be retarded and actually think for a second.
>>55389952
I keep wishing I was born in the alternate universe where we got a /re/ligion instead of another porn board.
>>55395733
It's basic evolution.
Here's one article about the concept:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-origins-of-evolutionary-complexity/
Complexity isn't the hallmark of design, simplicity is.
>>55395958
The fact I do not know leads to the logical conclusion that I do not know and therefore I believe/disbelieve in God in the same way you cam not know what ice cream flavor is you favorite. I do and do not think it is chocolate because I don't know.
>>55389843
You can be both you shitstains.
Agnosticism/gnosticism refers to whether or not you believe it is possible to have knowledge on the existence of a god.
Atheism/theism refers to your belief or lack thereof in a god.
>>55396021
My point was that nature may very well be dictated by laws that were design in some aspect, so naturally(pun not intended) i assume he's arguing against that point but it seems like he doesn't get my point by saying that "complexity has been known to arise naturally," when really the point being that nature itself is designed. Fuck.
>>55396146
Don't bother, this point seem to be lost on OP. For all his open mindedness he can't understand this one point.
>>55396146
More or less my argument is God is like Schrodinger's cat. You cannot be truly certain whether such an entity is dead or alive. You can only guess at it. So God is both dead and alive.
>>55396228
You make a claim like that and provide no source, but then demand a source on a pretty fucking obvious one someone else makes? What the fuck sort of retarded snownigger are you?
>>55389843
According to Logic everyone should be pragmatic
>>55389843
But that picture is two people basically saying the same thing. I don't get your point.
>>55396437
They're not at all saying the same thing. One lacks proof and realized he doesn't know and the other thinks that it should be proven by theists.
Anyway /thread I'm done here.
>>55396363
The universe and the life that has arisen on earth is all a one big structure that came about from unified laws working synergetically.
It's a structure, like a machine, a highly complicated machine.
We don't have machines here on earth that arise spontaneously do we? We design and create them. That's my point: that it's not stupid to entertain the idea that there is a "designer" behind the universe.[1] My sources are listed below.
[1] Common sense
>>55396589
Did you gain anything from this thread?
>>55396310
That's a retarded philosophy to have.
Does that mean we must think everything MAY exist even if we have no evidence for it? Like the second universe that sits in your mums vagina?
>>55396604
Again, your point is fucking retarded and was refuted by the other guy: you have no reason to assume that complexity is the result of a designer.
We build complicated machines in short spans of time. And yet organic machines have existed for billions of years now and took millions of years to get going initially. All because of the way chemical happen to interact.
Look up the anthropic principle.
>>55396540
How do you know that anything beside yourself exist then?
>>55393850
'dude weed lmao' the post. what the fuck do you mean, Canada?
>>55394813
obviously nobody can claim with 100% certainty that god doesn't exist, because it is not possible to prove a negative. What we as human beings can do is make weigh the evidence and make rational conclusions based on it.
I assert that there is no Zeus, not because I know for certain that he cannot exist, but because the odds of him existing are so insignificant that it is not worth considering. It is a waste of time to give credence to every God that humans have claimed to exist, simply because they cannot be proven to not exist.
The problem with agnosticism is that you are giving them credibility by not taking a stance against them. It's okay to have balls every now and then.
Also, I don't hate religions, I actually am quite fond of Christianity as a bastion against the mudslimes. Thanks for the ad hominem though.
>>55396675
He triggered some logicians.
>>55389843
actually an agnostic perspective would permit for a religious tendency as one extreme
this board is fucking terrible
>>55396830
>All because of the way chemical happen to interact.
This is what is so funny, you are so stubborn in your beliefs that you make statements like these without even considering how ludicrous it sounds that "chemicals just happen to interact with each other" without no apparent fucking reason.
Sure they may just happen to interact with each other like they do, but then again maybe, just maybe some intelligent force interfered with the way they "just happen to" interact with each other, and there's nothing stupid about considering that option.
Denying it is just arrogant.
>>55390930
Well that's what happens when they have a completely shallow understanding in their religion.
It takes just a little bit of digging into who Yahweh is to understand other gods existed in the early Jewish religion. Asherah being an obvious one (Ba'al another).
>>55389843
>We can't explain it yet. We just don't know.
And this would be the correct position had this been a factual issue, but it's not.
There is NO scientific evidence at all for a deity's existence. There is not even any reasonable hypothesis for one.
You might as well say that The Wizard of Oz exists, but there is no evidence at all pointing to that, nor any reasonable hypothesis. We may as well just say we know he doesn't exists.
>>55389843
>scientific logic
The claim of the "supernatural" is not a scientific one and it fails to qualify as a scientific hypothesis; "scientific logic" does not apply to it.
Your image is nonsensical.
>>55389843
Atheism only means "lack of belief", but most modern atheists think it means "I can prove X doesn't exist". At best, atheists can make a probabilistic argument, that there is a low probability of X given current evidence, which is all any scientist can claim, strictly speaking.
Ultimately, regardless of what label they choose, atheist only ever means "lacks a belief", and agnostic only ever means "doesn't know" or "lacks knowledge". But also, this only ever refers to a strictly scientific, observation-only level of knowing the world.
The problem here is not that science is somehow lacking; it does what it's designed to do just fine. The problem is that BOTH atheists and theists want their beliefs to count as objective, incontrovertible facts. They want what they want to OBJECTIVE, observable reality.
In the case of theism, this isn't necessary. Your faith teaches you that faith is all that counts. You don't need to prove anything at all. In the case of atheists, you don't need to disprove anything all, you just need to lack belief and keep to yourself.
We already have wonderful constitutional principles that allow people to believe or lack belief as they see fit, without needing to force anyone else to conform to it, especially not by using the State to enforce their chosen morality.
Idiots always try to trump up their mundane personal notions of reality to mean more than they possibly can.
Dark ages
>Christians: LOL WHAT TINY DINOSAURS THAT MAKE US SICK IMPOSSIBLE
>someone invents the microscope
>OH SHIT WE WERE WRONG
"modern" times
>Atheists: LOL WHAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST
Atheists are literally stuck in the dark ages.
