I see that some of you robots don't believe in God, or any higher being for that matter. Can you explain to me why? What made you come to this conclusion? I mean, there really isn't any indisputable proof that he doesn't exist.
>>24668919
I was born in a chrsitian family, have done the sacraments you're supposed to do (baptism, first communion, etc) and go to church sometimes, but i just can't believe in God.
Life is shitty and unfair. There is no way God would let this happen he wasn't evil. And if some evil superior being existed, why would i want to celebrate and glorify him ?
>>24668919
neither is there that he does
/thread
There isn't any indisputable proof that they do exist, so why believe?
>>24668919
i have no proof of nonexistence but he'd probably be disappointed if he did exist. disbelief lightens the load of guilt
>>24668919
I doubted for a long time, partially because science didn't match genesis, and partially because other religions exist. When I looked at the arguments I found that there wasn't really any reason to believe in sny specific god. And I trust science enough to not need to be a deist.
>>24668974
As a non-christian let me ask you something. Have you ever heard of free will? This world is shit because of us, not because God made it this way.
>>24668919
>caring what others believe
>getting buttblasted about it
foh!
>>24669005
>>24668978
I saw him. That's your indisputable proof.
>>24668919
Are you one of the people that believe the Earth is less than 5000 years old? Or that Muhammad flew to heaven on a horse? That's the sort of thing religion makes you believe...
>>24668919
The real question is, what reason do other people have to believe in God? We're not the ones who bear the burden of proof senpai.
>>24669079
even if the world wasnt deterministic because of the movement of atomic particles, it would be because of god's omniscience.
>>24669116
Just seeing something isn't proof that it exists.
>>24669116
prove you saw him.
>you go into the dreams/imagination you had in this life when dead
>>24669116
Indisputable proof requires empirical evidence that can be experienced unanimously to be true.
>I saw him
This is more likely hallucination since funly enough only you saw him...
>>24669102
That proves to you, not to us
most atheists don't deny the existance of a god. they just think it's improbable.and even if there was a god, why would he make someone whose biggest dream is to join the cavalry, but then give him aspergers so he can't join?
>>24669233
god doesn't make each individual person...
>>24668919
A 'perfect' being created me, a broken thing, for his amusement. If I do not dance properly to his tune, he will set me on fire, because 'he loves me'.
Yeah, no. Eat shit, godbot. Your god is an unsupervised tard in full Downsrage.
>>24669045
>And I trust science enough to not need to be a deist.
>I trust science
The fuck does that even mean? Scientists are notorious for being dishonest and sloppy. Peer-review is shit.
Science may be great but scientists are humans. It est fallible.
>>24668919
I see that some of you robots don't believe in Odin, God of Valhalla, or any higher being for that matter. Can you explain to me why? What made you come to this conclusion? I mean, there really isn't any indisputable proof that he doesn't exist.
>>24669116
Im disputin im disputin
>>24669301
i trust that we'll eventually figure things out, even if we dont know everything correctly now. i dont need a "god of the gaps".
>>24669312
Actually, Odin's son Thor did promise an end to the Ice Giants.
I don't see many Ice Giants around these days.
If you're religious, why dont you just give me all your money and let me kill you? You'd go to heaven and not have to worry about accidently stepping on a puppy in 12 years or something and going to hell.
>>24668919
Organized religious is ass and I think that if there is a higher power it doesnt follow shit rules and doesnt necessarily include an after life.
>>24669167
Then I ask, what IS proof that something exists? Take a distant star in the sky for example, surely nobody has done much other than see, i.e. observe it. Under your own definition, it is illogical to believe that, this star exists. Or any other star exists for that matter.
You could take this argument to absurd conclusions if you wished. For example, have you done much other than see, Beijing in a photo? If you have not traveled there, isn't it wise to assume that Beijing doesn't exist, merely because you have only seen it in pictures?
>>24669192
That can be experienced unanimously? Then let me ask you this. There are 100 men in a room. In this room there is a projector that plays a 30 second movie. The movie depicts a dog running about in a field. In the background, sounds of meows are heard for the duration of the movie. After the movie has ended, everyone is obliged to describe what it is the movie was about. 99 of them in the theater describe it in some sort of way that boils down to "a dog". However, one blind man in the theater swears that instead the movie was about a cat. Would you say there is no proof that this movie involves a cat? For one, there is no unanimous decision so there is no proof. And secondly, under your own definition it would be impossible for any proof to exist because you've defined it as "can be experienced" which the blind man cannot. So now I'm forced again for you to redefine proof so we may sidestep issues such as these.
And I ask as well, what is empirical evidence?
>Only I saw him
Nonsense, plenty of other Christians make the same claims that I do.
>>24669168
How would I go about doing that? Let's pretend that we are not discussing god, but my Computer. How would I go about proving that I had seen my computer?
I recently came to a weird epiphany:
>everyone is born an atheist and will stay that way unless someone converts them
>humans are the only species we know of that has religion
too old for imaginary friends
especially when they demand 10% of my income, i dont see why the creator of knowledge, space and time really needs ameribux
>>24669429
>How would I go about doing that? Let's pretend that we are not discussing god, but my Computer. How would I go about proving that I had seen my computer?
The point is I don't believe you. Your god has to show himself to each individual if he wants said individual to believe. But no he wants everyone to have faith forever cause he cant be asked to use his omnipotence to make himself known to everyone. If he wants to burn me for him not proving his own existence hes a dick.
>>24669429
The real problem is your fear of death. Thats why religion sexism, classism racism, ageism etc exists. People want to feel bettter than others.
>that group is the color of shit hahah shitskins
>that groups going to hell for worshiping the moon instead of the see hahah fucking heathens
>haha stupid roastie
>men are dumb kill all men ahh
>disgusting normie REE
I could go on for ages. Religion started as a way to control people and stop them from killing and raping each other because we didnt have a sound police force or judicial system yet; and it was kept alive by people not wanting to believe when you die that's it, just like a roach or a rat.
>>24669452
In the old days, people had a lot more faith and gave more than just 10% of their income. People used to trade in fortunes and even sexual favors to priests just so they could get God on their side. If I recall, I think Charlemagne gave away about 90% of his loot to the Catholic church just so they would pray for victory on behalf of his brigade. He left the last 10% to actually fund is army.
>>24669513
This.
He'd be a dick if he existed and it's a good thing he doesnt.
>>24669443
>implying ants don't worship the glory that is satan
>>24669429
With the star thing, and Beijing, we can tell that they exist because we can see the effect they have on things other than our senses. Beijing has an effect on things like the stock market, stars have gravity 'n' shit. There are no other explainations for these things than the presence of that thing. Every "miracle" can be explained by something else.
With relevance to the projector thing, you're calling religious people metaphorically blind or unable to take into account things they can't understand.
im not a robot, just visit this board when im really bored but here it goes anyway
why do you care about people being religious or not, right now(even though its probably bait) you said you do not understand why people dont believe theres a god, even though theres no proof that he doesnt exist, but theres also no proof that he does exist
religion probably started when people thought: "hey, everything is fucked up, we need to have something to believe in that will keep us going" religion mightve been started as a source for hope in darker times
untill somebody comesup with some proof, god will be an theoreticall thing, which everyonbe can have his own opinion about, just dont forget, that life doesnt give a shit about your opinion
either way, wheter he does exist or not, i simply dont give a damn, im just a little flash in time, i live my life without caring about any "greater goal", fuck that, i live for pleasure, any form of pleasure
and when i die, and god is waiting for me at the gates of heaven, telling me ive lived as a bad person, id just tell him "sorry, but i just simply couldnt believe"
>>24669620
>who cares bro xD
Apathetic moderates are worse than atheists and christfags because they can't understand why the search for absolute truth regarding potentially life changing world views might make a young person confused
Seek the truth op and play the devils advocate with yourself no matter your view. Try to prove yourself wrong.
>>24669513
Well there is quite an easy explanation for those issues you have raised, I'd explain it to you but I feel with a little bit of thinking about it you'll be able to figure it out. Let's ignore theology for a while and focus on the main issue.
Atheists contend that those who believe in God are idiots to believe because they have no proof. Many go on to say that they have proof in that, they have experienced god through some sort of sensory perception. Atheists claim that this alone is not sufficient proof, and mock the Christians for believing that they have experienced God. I have come along and asked a question in light of this: What is proof? Not proof of God, but proof in itself.
So that is why I asked something a bit more simple. How do I prove that I have seen something, whether it is God, an apple, or myself in a mirror? Is it possible? If so, how?
>>24669604
No, I'm not calling religious people metaphorically blind, as I am not even referring to religious people. I am merely using a thought experiment to point out that there are those that under the most bare circumstances cannot be experienced period, meaning
that there can not be proof for anything. I killed two birds with one stone by tying the unanimity issue into it. Again, what is proof? This has not been defined well.
As for the first part:
And what else is other than our sensory perception? You say that Beijing has an effect on things like the stock market, but how do you perceive those effects? Wouldn't the same rule being discussed also apply to that sensory perception of perceiving the effects? Moreover, how do you correlate the effect of the stock market to that of Beijing and not to something else?Lastly how is it that, when you find two conflicting potential causes that you determine the actual cause
And surely, couldn't this argument be made in favor of God if I were determined to do so? For example, by pointing to people who believe and how it affects them?
>>24668919
>Can you explain to me why?
It's just not something I logically agree with. I was raised in a church-going household, but I never felt comfortable with those beliefs. When I moved out of my parents' house, I was more free to question those beliefs and arrive at my own conclusions without having to worry about the consequences it would have on my relationship with my family.
I can say I'm much happier as a result now. Being forced to participate in something I never agreed with made my childhood extremely uncomfortable.
>>24669429
Okay maybe unanimous was poor word choice but it takes anyone with common sense to understand what I meant. The whole point of empirical evidence is that it can be observed. If there is a movie of a dog that can be analysed and observed to be a movie of a dog by 99 people then it is determined to be a movie about a dog with cat noises. The fact that someone who can't see is unable to come to that conclusion doesn't change the fact - it just means they lack all the data to make a valid conclusion.
To address your other nonsensical arguments: we can look at a distant star in a telescope only because of the light given off by the star. If there was no energy produced by the star's burning then we would not be able to see it. Note: we can ALL see stars.
This brings us back to your original claim. To state that because sole individuals have experienced 'God' therefore there is evidence of his existence is a fallacy. There is no observable, testable data/evidence - only claims.
>>24669127
Why would you ask the one obvious question op wanted someone to ask just to shit post more, unless you are the op
>>24669620
Religion can actually cause more suffering than alleviate it. A lie is a lie no matter how poetic or beautiful it is.
>>24668919
God is a meme
I asked god for a dog and my mom died the next week in a crash
If he exists he hates me for being a good christian for 17 years which makes no sense
>>24669839
its not possible to prove. I'm not saying you have to prove it to me, I'm saying I won't believe it until I see it myself, if seeing it first hand is enough to make someone believe. I've no clue what you're on about about my issues having theological answers.
God is a filler that suburban moms use to complete their shitty lives. Religion mandates oppression. The end.
Isn't it super convenient that there is nothing concrete to support God's existence? We have to rely on leaps of faith and the select few special snowflakes he chose to reveal himself to. Isn't it so convenient for them to hide behind their
>but I saw him!! how do you even prove you have seen anything? pop pseudo philosophy bullshit...
>>24669938
I'm not OP. I'm just saying I don't want to believe in something that's never been demonstrated to be true. I think religion was born out of a lack of understanding of how the world works. I guess since humans create things, they naturally assume that non man-made things also had an intelligent creator. Many religions also make a lot of false claims about natural phenomena, like what causes rain, thunder, or how the earth was formed. I think religious texts like the Bible were meant to be taken literally, and I think the sophistry we use to make it make any sense in the modern era is a waste of time.
>>24669898
Taking the dog example. You are saying that so long as a majority, rather than the whole agrees it is true? Or is it more than that? If that is the case, we will be forced to construct a new thought experiment to test the validity of that definition.
But first, what is it that you mean "can be analyzed and observed" how does one do that? Do you mean can in the sense that is possible? Couldn't it then be observed and analyzed to be anything? Let's assume you meant "is" rather than can. How is it that you analyze and observe in the proper way?
In regards to the "lacking of all data to make a valid conclusion" how does one know when one has all data? If we cannot know, then it seems we can never make a valid conclusion.
>>24669978
You say that it is not possible to prove that you have seen anything? Why do Atheists mock Christians and not everyone then? For surely they have said they have seen something and not have sufficient proof they have seen something. Or do you just mean God? If that is the case, again, how is it that one proves they have seen any such thing not just GOD. For example, I woke up today and saw the door of my bedroom in plain sight. How do I prove that I have seen this to you?
>But no he wants everyone to have faith forever cause he cant be asked to use his omnipotence to make himself known to everyone. If he wants to burn me for him not proving his own existence hes a dick.
This is what I meant there was an answer to. But really, if you think about it isn't hard to understand.
niggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggerniggernigger
>>24669954
does hope stop you from suffering?
it doesnt, never said so, but it does keep you going through all that misery
>>24670056
I'm actually Agnostic, but I completely and utterly despise you brain dead Atheists who, if learned anything about the faith would convert on the spot. You're all idiots and don't realize that you're pushing a special standard onto religious subjects that you don't dare to push on any other subject, even if such subject makes more incredulous claims.
Not only that, you are completely and utterly ignorant of Christianity and what it teaches, what its goal is, or what it has contributed to the world. The amount of idiotic statements like:
>But no he wants everyone to have faith forever cause he cant be asked to use his omnipotence to make himself known to everyone. If he wants to burn me for him not proving his own existence hes a dick.
In threads like these is too much to bear. I mean, I know /r9k/ is full of the lowest of the low and most idiotic of idiots, but when it comes to Religion they go full retard mode.
Fun fact: You can't actually prove that reality is "real" and you're not just a brain in a vat/living in a simulation/ you yourself are generating all of the world. No amount of empiricism or rationality can help you here. To assume anything is real you already have to perform a leap of faith, not too different from the leap of faith that you need to assume there is a god.
However, the potential fact that nothing is real or the potential presence of a creator gives no reason, rational or otherwise as to how it should affect the way you live your life.
There, we can all go home now.
I believe in God, OP.
>>24670186
you can't prove to someone that you have seen something unless they see it too at the same time, and even then its just trusting the claim that you've seen it. I try not to mock faiths, because I don't care what others believe. If someone claims their religion is true I'll probably be able to say "I don't believe you" no matter what religion it is. I might be harsher on christianity cause I used to believe it. Though I'm simply not convinced I probably act like its not true. anyways i'm rambling.
And I don't get why a god would need faith. considering thats the only reason that not everyone believes in him. Since its a meaningless value to me, my understanding of YHVH is he burns people because he doesn't want to reveal himself even though that action would be infinetesimally difficult given an infinite power. theres other interpretations like, "hell isnt that bad" etc, but that doesnt seperate the fact that he requires people to trust in his existence based on a claim alone, before paradise is even on the table. He doesn't let people convert after death, after they've seen him. He wants people to "have a relationship with him" without them even meeting him. He's insane. As far as I'm concerned hes an egregore at best, and a shoddy explanation for the universe at worst.
>>24670689
faith is a test of trust and love in something that is pretty much intangible
>>24670438
How is it an idiotic statement. As far as I'm concerned He hasn't proven his existence, and the bible is just a claim, and christians threaten hell on anyone who doesn't believe.
>>24670743
Well I don't have faith. What now. As far as I'm concerned the bible is contradicted by science and I'm not going to jump through mental gymnastics to reconcile them. As far as I'm concerned science can explain the universe without a superbeing. as far as I'm concerned, God never let me know him when I was a christian, and furthermore since I'm a determinist, he meant for me to lose faith in him. If there is a punishment for that then whatever. If he wants to have a relationship with people he should let his existence be known. because as you can see there are plenty of people without faith, and it does nothing but give an excuse for why hes not known.
>>24670186
I was a little of the way through explaining myself to you but then I remembered that I'm arguing with someone who believes that "but I saw God" is good enough proof that he is there.
I can observe a football field, take measurements of the football field hundreds of times and after analysis come to the conclusion of various attributes of the field. I could take samples of the grass and even test the mineral composition of the soil. I could know anything I wanted to know about the football field by using the scientific method. The entire point is that there has to be something to test. I can't do that with God.
>>24670894
I don't know, man. I don't have all the answers. My feelings about determinism brought me to have faith in god's will. It's not up to me to judge you and say you're gonna go to hell or not. For me his existence is known to me and maybe others are just on their way to either experience the same thing or never find it.
For me, it's sort of helping me out of my personal hell so I have faith that this is the key out
>>24671038
also about the scientific testing part, it's more about spirituality and faith in trusting my intuition. It can't really be shown and proven but i think it makes sense in the way my life is playing out with battling myself and emotions/temptations.
>>24671038
I wish you luck in keeping your faith. Hopefully OP realizes that atheists have good reason to be atheists if this thread wasn't just bait. I never liked that feeling of doubt, and I don't want to make others lose hope.
>>24669839
Apologies, let me rephrase my argument.
The blind man does not take into account other, more valid sources of discerning what the video is about. This could apply to religious people, as they take information they find in an unscientific study on the universe that in many places is provably wrong (like how the world is round) and use that as opposed to the variety of mathematical calculations.
We can observe Beijing's effect on the stock market using mathematics, something that is not a sensory input but a logical process. We can see that the effect is from Beijing because if we were to hypothetically remove them from the equation the stock market would follow a different pattern.
if god was real he'd be some cranky overworked office worker that wants to blow his brains out from the sheer amount of paperwork he'd have to do. tell me why would u worship such a miserable guy
I believe in things I can see, and I haven't seen god. Therefore I do not believe in god.
