>atheism
>logic
Can someone explain what's the difference?
>>24618275
logic is actually required for practical applications such as programming and mathematics. Wheras atheism is only required for being an annoying redditor.
>>24618302
>practical
fuck off appliedfag
>>24618275
Atheism spawned a gaggle of retards who are just as bad as the fuckwits they debate against.
You can logically disregard god and gods without needing to do that shit.
because the actual masterrace is agnostic
Atheism isn't logical, once you start thinking about what it means to know things.
>>24618386
>agnostic
>choosing to not answer a question is now master race
laughing @ u lol
>>24618647
>empiricism isn't logical
sure buddy, say hi to Sithrak when you die for me
>>24618275
There was a point before we had things like logic and scientific method. How then did we determine that logic is the way to go?
We did so through philosophy which inhabits the realm of metaphysics which looks at things for which there is scarce or no evidence, pure concoctions of the mind, this is where other discussions take place, like theology, of which atheism is a subset.
So, when all these ideas are neatly segregated you can see that atheism is in a completely different ballpark.
>>24618275
Atheism is just a "logical" as a theism. They're both on the extreme end of "understanding" therefore they're both inehrently wrong.
One thing I can give to atheists is their understanding that human religions are false, but that's it. You can't say for certain there is or isn't a God.
>>24618358
this is the only correct answer
I'm an atheist and hate the bluepilled fedora wearing c.ucks of the atheist "movement" almost as much as i hate feminists
>>24618808
there is no evidence for a god
if we apply the null hypothesis and occam's razor, assuming there is no god is the only logical way to go
what's the problem here
>>24618713
>trying to answer an impossible question
>thinking it matters anyway
>thinking anything means anything
>>24618808
No you stupid fuck either one is right or the other is wrong. They can't both be wrong.
In either case they both try to understand while agnosticism makes no attempts at understanding.
>>24618857
One is right and one is wrong but you will never figure out which, so it's illogical to pick one side because there's zero evidence for either one.
Explain to me how they "try" and understand because realistically there's no way of trying to understand the existence of a complex being you can't even begin to comprehend.
>>24618837
>there is no evidence for a god
There's also no proof there isn't a god. I bet you're the type of atheist who thinks the burden of proof lies with the theists and the theists alone.
>>24618928
>null hypothesis
>occam's razor
did you even read my post
>>24618973
Yes, and it doesn't make any difference at all.
>>24619029
then you're a fucking idiot, but we knew that already didn't we
in the absence of evidence, the simplest answer is usually the correct one
so tell me, which is simpler
that there is an omniscient, omnipotent being that created the universe and sacrificed himself to himself so he wouldn't punish his 'children'
or that the universe is a chaotic uncaring void
>>24618973
>atheism
>the universe was always present in some sort of state and started expanding into the void
>theism
>a god/gods did it
Somehow I think you can argue that theism requires less explanation, therefore is the more logical approach.
>>24619096
How do we definite simplicity in terms with the fucking Universe you little cunt? We don't even fully comprehend what we are let alone the measly three-dimensions we inhabit.
God damn you fucking atheist fucks are just as retarded.
>>24619120
>always present in some sort of state
what made-up bullshit is this
>into the void
there's no void to expand into you moron
>>24619143
>define simplicity
the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is a pretty good definition
>>24619183
Wow, you're so confident in your beliefs and what you think the universe is. Very very rational argument you've set forth.
You can construct any argument to have fewer assumptions to fit Occam's Razor.
>there's no void to expand into you moron
>what made-up bullshit is this
I'm sorry, are you a god? You know this, how?
>>24618647
I wish I could be 14 again.
>>24619237
because the universe is all that there is, by definition
there can't be anything 'outside' the universe
as soon as there is, that thing exists, and is therefore part of the universe, and not outside of it
seriously where the fuck are you reading that the universe was always present
nobody has believed the steady state theory for decades
go read some brian greene or some shit
>>24619349
>because the universe is all that there is, by definition
>by defintion
You are seriously the most retarded individual I've ever had the displeasure of arguing with. You're speaking like some militant atheist twat who thinks he's streamlined the secret truth of the universe when in reality you're just an intelligent ape with "complex" thoughts.
Understand what you are and you're place in the Universe and maybe you'll begin to understand how little you truly DO understand. We will NEVER understand the complexity of life and the universe as we know it. Never.
Even beginning to think you understand is incredibly naive. YOU are the universe. YOU are the universe coming to life and thinking for itself. You don't know if the universe was always present or not because it's impossible to know.
>>24619524
are you fucking serious
go read some fucking cosmology
we may not know everything but science doesn't claim to know everything
there's plenty we know about the universe, backed up by observations
and until we find better explanations, we may as well accept the ones we have
take your pyhrronism and shove it
you sound like one of those 'enlightened' faggots who had an acid trip and thinks they've seen the true nature of reality or some bullshit
>>24619627
>backed up by observations
Observations made by a species that's been around for a MASSIVE 200,000 years which is also limited by 3 spacial dimensions.
TRULY THE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE. Look dude, all I'm saying is picking either extreme is inherently irrational, and to bring up Occam's Razor has nothing to do with anything when anybody can construct an argument with few assumptions to fit the narrative.
The best way to live is to understand you (the universe) will never understand what you (the universe) truly is.
>>24619807
we know we'll never understand it in full
that doesn't mean we should just discard everything we think we know and not try to learn anything
that's intellectually lazy
agnostic isn't a position
you can be gnostic atheist (i know there is no god)
agnostic atheist (there is probably no god)
agnostic theist (there is probably a god)
gnostic their (there is definitely a god)
only agnostic atheist is the logical choice
we can't know for sure, but we must assume that there is no god
>>24619895
>we know we'll never understand it in full
That's all I needed to hear from you.
>seriously discussing stuff on the internet
why
>>24618275
atheism is retarded, you bumfucked faggot fedora. it's not an analogy to "logic".
I swear, there is literally nothing fucking healthy about being atheist. same goes for nihilists or all those self-absorbed radical rationalists. they're all assholes denying the importance of emotional or spiritual matters. they expect you to be completely fine with having to die and never be conflicted about it. they expect you to abandon all hopes you have and all fantasies because they seem too unreasonable for them.
really gotta ask yourself in this day and age which group you belong to: faggot fedoras AKA soulless bio-robots or actual human beings that are guided by their hearts and passions and not only their brains.
>>24620067
lmao u mad af boiiiii
>>24620067
We're you fine with not being born?
>>24620083
yeah, I guess so and I embrace it and don't hide it.
now what? most self-proclaimed atheists are afraid of doing exactly that. embracing their emotions and embracing subjective truth, ergo: the only truth that matters for every single individual and not just generalized objective truth and "MUH SCIENCE".
Logic allows you to deduce facts out of other facts. Like in mathematical proofs most of the time have some underlying logic to them so your deductions can also be considered right.
Atheism on the other hand takes facts/claims from different fields of science and trys to combine them to make claims about completely unrelated things under the disguise of what they call logic.
I personally think that the existence of a god is neither provable or disprovable. But if some day any theist or atheist makes a truly logical proof I will be convinced otherwise.
Y'all motherfuckers need some New Gods in your life.
>>24620199
learn to form coherent sentences. I can tell your fat sausage fingers are shaking from being so angry and that fedora bouncing around on your sweaty head in rage and denial.
>>24620292
were*
Learn to answer a question.
If someone is afraid of death so much why weren't they afraid before they were born?
Agnostiscism is actually the only logical choice.
Because you don't know, and you have no way of knowing. And that's final, for now. You cannot logically say that a god does or doesn't exist.
>>24620318
>and that's final
>for now
nigga what
>>24620321
It's possible, if there is a god, they'll appear or show some proof of their existance.
>>24618857
Even in Mathematics there are things that can't be proven or disproven. And there is a branch of mathematical logic where things cannot only be true or false they also can be undecidable. How can you claim everything is either true or false?
>>24620400
then it's not final is it
>>24620401
and nobody knows if p=np
that doesn't stop most rational people from assuming p=/=np
>>24620400
You imply a god would cares or even exist in any way we can imagine. That is just as logical as a big man in the sky.
>>24620464
Who are you to assume what a god would and wouldn't care about?
>>24618763
>when you die for me
ANON DIED FOR YOUR SINS.
R9K RELIGION WHEN?
>>24618928
>I bet you're the type of atheist who thinks the burden of proof lies with the theists and the theists alone.
Why doesn't it? Preempting it with that sort of statement doesn't make it less valid.
If you take the existence of any god seriously based on the point that there can't be evidence against it, then you also have to take as seriously my claim that there's an invisible, unsmellable, unfeelable nigger shitting invisible, unsmellable, unfeelable diarrhea onto your head as we speak. In fact, you have to take the infinite imaginary scenarios that any person can concoct with the same degree of logical validity you ascribe to theist beliefs. It's obviously absurd.
>>24620451
There is a difference. The p=np Problem might by solved. But there are Problems which have been proven to be unprovable. See Goedel. No rational person would make any claim or argue about said problem because an answer does not exist.
>>24618358
>Atheism spawned a gaggle of retards who are just as bad as the fuckwits they debate against
Atheism didn't spawn shit. You're arguing against flaws in human nature itself. Humans of every creed are equally prone to being sectarian assholes.
>>24620499
You argument was that if a god exists he would show a sign of existence.
Mine was that this is only assumption.
At no point did I any claim about what a god is/isn't or does/doesn't. I only pointed out that you did.
Atheism is just a form of autism, just Like aspergers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2039690/Atheism-autism-Controversial-new-study-points-link-two.html
>>24620545
The concept of a god is a little more thought out and sensible than an invisible, unsmellable, unfeelable nigger shitting invisible, unsmellable, unfeelable diarrhea.
I don't have to take any scenarios seriously because said "scenarios" are made by human being who again, have no concept of what god is or what god can be.
A god could very well be what you just posted, it's just so extremely unlikely it might as well be bullshit. The difference between what I'm putting forth is just the possible existence of a being, not the qualities and intentions of said being.
hey atheists is it possible that god exists, even if in other universe?
>>24620628
>You argument was that if a god exists he would show a sign of existence.
This is not my argument and nowhere did I said this. Should have probably mentioned I'm not that other guy.
>>24620637
Autists aren't ruled by their emotion
Sort of proves religious people are just dumb animals
>>24618837
There is no universal definition for a God, or Gods, either
>>24620646
>it's just so extremely unlikely it might as well be bullshit
The concept of god is just so extremely unlikely it might as well be bullshit. Anyone can play that game.
The fact of the matter is that you aren't being logically consistent. Your (oft-used) argument was that a claim without evidence needs evidence to discount it as well. That should apply to any such claim - or should, unless the person is as comfortable as you are with using extraordinary measures of mental gymnastics.
>>24620038
>having access to all the world's knowledge a few clicks away
>memes exclusively
I like a good shitpost, but how can you not seek to learn with it all right in front of you?
>>24620738
which proves my point
nobody can even agree on a definition
why should you believe in something undefinable?
furthermore, why should you believe in any particular definition for it?
each definition is just as unlikely as all the others
>>24620825
>The concept of god is just so extremely unlikely it might as well be bullshit.
Explain why this is true.
You are trying to say the concept of a god is just a likely as the concept of a god who enjoys hotdogs and watching the Big Bang Theory. One is more likely than the other and you know it.
This is the time when you pull the Occam's Razor card. A claim does need evidence for it to be even supported, and there is no evidence for the existence or non-existence of god so both are equally as likely.
>>24620912
>You are trying to say the concept of a god is just a likely as the concept of a god who enjoys hotdogs and watching the Big Bang Theory
I am not. My claim is that a nigger is shitting on your head. Nothing more.
You're the one attaching godhood to him just so you can use Occam's Razor. This is what mental gymnastics looks like. Note how you slipped in something irrelevant to my point in order to have an argument against it.
>>24620912
think of it this way
what are the implications of there being a god?
what are the implications of there not being a god?
what are the implications of it being unknowable?
now compare those last two and tell me why you believe the latter
>>24620992
>I am not.
>If you take the existence of any god seriously based on the point that there can't be evidence against it, then you also have to take as seriously my claim that there's an invisible, unsmellable, unfeelable nigger shitting invisible, unsmellable, unfeelable diarrhea onto your head as we speak.
This is some straight up retardation. I've already said my stance multiple times throughout this thread.
>>24621115
Your stance is that a claim needs evidence to disprove it before it can be discounted, as you say, "as bullshit". If you've said it multiple times in the thread, then all you've done is make an ass of yourself multiple times in the thread.
WE NEED TO KILL GOD
>>24621201
My stance is a claim is a claim until proven otherwise. My stance is the concept of a god is more likely than a invisible nigger shitting on my head.
I really don't understand where you're attempting to go with this.
>>24618275
A real logical person would rather be agnostic than atheist.
There is a great fallacy that atheism and intelligence are one in the same, with people thinking that because they know religion isn't literally true that they are giants among insects. Likewise there are perfectly reasonable religious people who know that he majority of dogma is meant to be taken allegorically and let it influence their lives positively. Illogical atheists are just as annoying as illogical religious people and do nothing except make everyone else in that group look bad.
>All these people thinking agnosticism is the best choice
Good luck finding your way in life if you're afraid to choose a path
>>24621453
Exactly. A logical Person would see that after centuries of trying it is more likely that the existence of God is not provable. And every "logical" claim atheists make is as "logical" as claims made by theist. If anyone actually had a logical proof the debate would be over by now.
>>24621330
>My stance is the concept of a god is more likely than a invisible nigger shitting on my head.
Your stance is based on making an exception in your rationale based on nothing. There is no reason to say which is more likely because your logic is that a claim needs negating evidence to be discounted.
>>24621290
He's mostly dead. The question of "How could god do this?" has been supplanted by "How could we do this?"
>>24621946
I feel like I don't have to explain why the concept of a god with no attributes given is more likely than a invisible shitting nigger, so I won't.
>>24620912
>A claim does need evidence for it to be even supported, and there is no evidence for the existence or non-existence of god so both are equally as likely.
>both are equally as likely.
There is this famous quote : "Not even wrong"
